Court Opinion

ID: 9910400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 17:00:57.237568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:50.301722
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13530     Document: 10-1        Date Filed: 12/15/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                      [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-13530
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       CARLOS A. ALONSO CANO,
       as next friend of his minor daughters,
       Katy Alonso Morejon and
       Jany Leidy Alonso Morejon,
       FE MOREJON FERNANDEZ,
       KATY A MOREJON,
       ANGIE A MOREJON,
                                                       Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
       JANY L. ALONSO,
                                                 Interested Party-Appellant.
       versus
USCA11 Case: 23-13530        Document: 10-1        Date Filed: 12/15/2023        Page: 2 of 3

       2                         Opinion of the Court                     23-13530

       245 C&C, LLC,
       CFH GROUP, LLC,

                                                          Defendants-Appellees,

                              ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Florida
                       D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-21826-JAL
                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Carlos Cano and his family appeal from four non-ﬁnal orders
       concerning discovery sanctions, an evidentiary motion, a motion
       for judicial notice, and various motions to strike diﬀerent ﬁlings.
       The non-ﬁnal orders became reviewable after the district court en-
       tered its July 20, 2023, ﬁnal order and judgment. 1 See Fed. R. App.
       P. 3(c); Akin v. PAFEC Ltd., 991 F.2d 1550, 1563 (11th Cir. 1993).

       1 A magistrate judge issued one of the four designated orders. While we typi-

       cally cannot review decisions of a magistrate judge directly, the parties con-
       sented to a magistrate judge issuing final orders on motions concerning dis-
       covery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Therefore, the magistrate judge’s order
       may be appealed directly to this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3).
USCA11 Case: 23-13530      Document: 10-1       Date Filed: 12/15/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-13530                Opinion of the Court                          3

       Appellants ﬁled a postjudgment motion on July 21, 2023, tolling the
       time to appeal these orders until the resolution of that motion on
       the same day. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e);
       Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 258-59 (11th Cir. 1988). Thus,
       the 30-day statutory time limit required appellants to ﬁle a notice
       of appeal on or before August 21, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed.
       R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 26(a)(1)(C). However, appellants did not ﬁle
       the notice of appeal that created this appeal until October 20, 2023.
              Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot in-
       voke our appellate jurisdiction. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous.
       Servs. Of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 21 (2017). Appellants earlier, timely
       notice of appeal from the final judgment remains pending in appeal
       number 23-12413.
              No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies
       with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all
       other applicable rules.