Court Opinion

ID: 9906341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 20:00:59.295612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:17.853488
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13384     Document: 8-2       Date Filed: 12/01/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                     In the
               United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-13384
                           ____________________

      U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
      LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR
      TRUMAN 2016 SC6 TITLE TRUST,
                                                        Plaintiff-Appellee,
      versus
      VALERIA TAVERAS,
      a.k.a. Valeria Rosa Taveras,
      ELIEZER TAVERAS,
      a.k.a. Eliezer Taveras, Sr.,

                                                   Defendants-Appellants,

      REUNION RESORT & CLUB OF
      ORLANDO MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC. et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-13384     Document: 8-2     Date Filed: 12/01/2023     Page: 2 of 3

      2                       Order of the Court                 23-13384

                                                              Defendants.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-01493-WWB-EJK
                          ____________________

      Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
      BY THE COURT:
              This appeal is DISMISSED in part, sua sponte, for lack of ju-
      risdiction. Eliezar Taveras and Valeria Taveras appeal, pro se, from
      a magistrate judge’s September 12, 2022, order denying them leave
      to amend their notice of removal. The magistrate judge’s order,
      however, is not final or appealable to this Court, as an appeal from
      a magistrate judge’s order must be taken to the district court. See
      United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009). Even
      if the district judge ultimately affirms the order, that subsequent
      affirmance would not cure the Taverases’s premature notice of ap-
      peal. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272,
      1273 (11th Cir. 1998).
             The Taverases also appeal the district court’s October 11,
      2023, order remanding the underlying action to state court. The
      order was based on the district court’s lack of subject matter juris-
      diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), and we generally lack jurisdiction
      to review such orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)-(d). However,
USCA11 Case: 23-13384     Document: 8-2     Date Filed: 12/01/2023     Page: 3 of 3

      23-13384                Order of the Court                         3

      because the Taverases’s notice of removal listed 28 U.S.C. § 1443
      as a basis for removal, we have jurisdiction to review the district
      court’s remand order, including its implicit determination that re-
      moval was not warranted under § 1443. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)-(d);
      BP P.L.C. v. Mayor of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021); Alabama v.
      Conley, 245 F.3d 1292, 1293 n.1 (11th Cir. 2001).
             Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate
      judge’s September 12, 2022, order. However, this appeal may pro-
      ceed as to the district court’s October 11, 2023, remand order.
             No motion for reconsideration may be filed unless it com-
      plies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2
      and all other applicable rules.