[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10115

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

LEVI TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GEBRUEDER KNAUF 

VERWALTUNGSGESELLSCHAFT, KG, et al.

Defendants,

KNAUF GIPS KG, 

KNAUF PLASTERBOARD ( TIANJIN ) CO., LTD., 

USCA11 Case: 23-10115 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10115

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-24188-RNS

____________________

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, AND BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Levi Taylor appeals the district court’s November 30, 2022 

order dismissing his action and imposing attorney’s fees as sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) but leaving the amount of fees to 

be determined. He filed his notice of appeal on December 29, 2022, 

before the district court entered its January 3, 2023 order determining the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded, and he did not file 

a new or amended notice of appeal after entry of the January 3 order. The defendants have moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of 

finality. We conclude that the November 30 order was not final or 

otherwise appealable and, thus, the notice of appeal was premature. 

We generally only have jurisdiction to review final decisions 

of district courts that end the litigation on the merits and leave 

nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. See CSX 

Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 

2000). Generally, a pending request for attorney’s fees by a 

USCA11 Case: 23-10115 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 2 of 4
23-10115 Opinion of the Court 3

prevailing party is a collateral matter that does not affect finality. 

See Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 197, 199-202 

(1988); Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of 

Operating Eng’rs & Participating Emps., 571 U.S. 177, 180-81, 183-86, 

189-90 (2014). However, orders imposing attorney’s fees as sanctions are different. In Jaffe v. Sundowner Properties, Inc., we concluded that an appeal from an order dismissing an action and 

awarding attorney’s fees as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) 

was not final because the amount of attorney’s fees had not yet 

been determined. 808 F.2d 1425, 1426-27 (11th Cir. 1987). We reasoned that the award of attorney’s fees was “not separable from the 

imposition of the dismissal sanction.” See id. at 1427. 

Jaffe’s reasoning applies with equal force here. Thus, there 

was no final order until the district court entered its January 3 order 

determining the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded, which 

Taylor did not appeal. See id. at 1426-27. Moreover, the January 3 

order did not cure the premature appeal because the November 30 

order was an interlocutory order that could not be appealed under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). See Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 1378, 1382-83 

(11th Cir. 1986) (discussing our precedent to explain that, when appeals are taken from interlocutory orders not appealable under 

Rule 54(b), subsequent entry of final judgment cannot cure those 

premature appeals); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (providing that a “court 

may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer 

than all, claims or parties”). The January 3 order applied to Taylor’s case because (1) the November 30, 2022 order that the January 

3 order followed-up on and finalized explicitly applied to Taylor’s

USCA11 Case: 23-10115 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10115

case; (2) the January 3 order was filed in a docket that the district 

court had ordered Taylor to file documents in, and the court had 

entered other orders only in that docket that applied to related actions; and (3) the January 3 order provided the case number for 

Taylor’s case and described the November 30 order as applying to 

that case. 

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this 

appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All other pending 

motions are DENIED as moot. 

USCA11 Case: 23-10115 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 4 of 4