Court Opinion

ID: 9939806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 20:00:57.066042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:00.486196
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12900     Document: 34-1       Date Filed: 02/12/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                      In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eleventh Circuit

                            ____________________

                                    No. 23-12900
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
                                                         Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       RBF TRUST LLC,
       a Florida company, et al.,

                                                               Defendants,

       PAULO FERNANDO DE BASTOS,

                                                      Defendant-Appellant,
USCA11 Case: 23-12900      Document: 34-1       Date Filed: 02/12/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12900

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cv-61831-AHS
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) motion
       to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. Paulo
       Fernando De Bastos appeals from the district court’s order denying
       his motion for deposition via videoconference. The SEC argues
       that the court’s order was not a final order or an appealable inter-
       locutory order because it was a pretrial discovery order not subject
       to immediate appeal, De Bastos’s interest in a remote deposition
       was merely a preference, and the order was not certified for inter-
       locutory review.
               We agree. We lack jurisdiction to review the court’s order
       denying De Bastos a remote deposition because it did not end the
       litigation on the merits, and it is therefore not final and appealable.
       See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; World Fuel Corp. v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1345,
       1348 (11th Cir. 2009); Rouse Constr. Int’l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp.,
       680 F.2d 743, 745 (11th Cir. 1982). Additionally, the order is not
       immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine be-
       cause De Bastos may raise arguments about the court’s denial of
       his motion to appear remotely for his deposition after a final
USCA11 Case: 23-12900      Document: 34-1       Date Filed: 02/12/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-12900                Opinion of the Court                          3

       judgment is issued in the case. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d
       1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014); Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472
       U.S. 424, 430-31 (1985) (stating that the collateral order doctrine is
       narrow, and its “reach is limited to trial court orders affecting rights
       that will be irretrievably lost in the absence of an immediate ap-
       peal”). Accordingly, De Bastos’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
       jurisdiction.