
    EUROPA MARITIME S.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANGANESE TRANS ATLANTIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, Systemar Co. Ltd., Empire Chemical, LLC, Privat Intertrading, Defendants.
    No. 11-1256-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 19, 2011.
    Garth S. Wolfson, Mahoney & Keane, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Richard J. Colosimo, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
    PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court’s jurisdiction over appeals from a district court is limited to “final decisions.” Defendant-Appellant Manganese Trans Atlantic Corporation appeals from a district court order denying its motion to vacate a Rule B maritime attachment as moot, and denying its motion to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The order, without question, is not a “final order” for the purposes of appellate review, because it did not “end[ ] the litigation on the merits and leave[ ] nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Wabtec Corp. v. Faiveley Trans. Malmo AB, 525 F.3d 135, 137 (2d Cir.2008) (quotation marks omitted).

The district court did not certify its order for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The order is not within the limited class of “[ijnterlocutory decrees ... determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to admiralty cases” under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3). See Astarte Shipping Co. v. Allied Steel & Exp. Serv., 767 F.2d 86, 88 (5th Cir.1985) (per curiam). And this interlocutory appeal does not fall within the narrow “collateral order” doctrine, because the district court’s order is not “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” See Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006) (quotation marks omitted). Unlike, for example, claims of sovereign or governmental immunity, which are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because immunity grants a “right not to stand trial,” In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation, 521 F.3d 169, 179 (2d Cir.2008) (quotation marks omitted), a claim that the district court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant is simply a claimed right on the part of the defendant not to be subject to the judgment of a particular forum. Denial of that claim, therefore, cannot be immediately appealed. See Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 527, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 100 L.Ed.2d 517 (1988) (“[T]he denial of a claim of lack of [personal] jurisdiction is not an immediately appealable collateral order.”); see also Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495, 501, 109 S.Ct. 1976, 104 L.Ed.2d 548 (1989).

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.  