Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-11375/USCOURTS-ca11-23-11375-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11375

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DENISE SNEED SAVAGE, 

Interested Party-Appellant,

versus

GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. USA, 

MARLENE GOLDENBERG,

APOTEX CORP., 

MICHAEL MCCANDLESS, 

BRAD ALDRIDGE, 

et.al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-11375 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11375

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:20-md-02924-RLR

____________________

Before GRANT, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Because Denise Sneed Savage’s notice of appeal did not 

clearly designate any particular order to be appealed, we asked the 

parties to address which order(s) she intended to appeal and the 

basis of our jurisdiction to consider those order(s). See Fed. R. App. 

P. 3(c).

Liberally construed, Savage’s response to our jurisdictional 

questions and her merits brief indicate that she is challenging: (1) 

an October 4, 2022 paperless order directing her to file a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis; (2) an October 21, 2022 order consolidating her case in multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) and administratively 

closing her individual case; (3) November 4, 2022 and November 

28, 2022 orders denying her motions for referral to a volunteer attorney program; and (4) a December 19, 2022 order clarifying the 

scope of a tolling provision for participation in a voluntary claims 

registry. See Nichols v. Ala. State Bar, 815 F.3d 726, 731 (11th Cir. 

2016) (providing that we “may look to the record, including the 

parties’ briefs, to determine the orders or parts thereof an appellant 

intended to appeal”).

USCA11 Case: 23-11375 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2024 Page: 2 of 3
23-11375 Opinion of the Court 3

Those orders are not final orders that resolved Savage’s case 

on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 

22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022). Nor are they immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, as they either did not 

conclusively resolve a disputed question or are not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 

744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a non-final 

ruling may be appealed if it conclusively determines a disputed 

question, resolves an important issue completely separate from the 

merits, and is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment). Although the district court appears to have ended the litigation on the merits in this MDL during the pendency of this appeal, its subsequent final judgment does not retroactively validate 

this premature appeal from nonfinal interlocutory orders.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

USCA11 Case: 23-11375 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2024 Page: 3 of 3