Court Opinion

ID: 9909603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 19:01:03.088466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:05.861912
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13704     Document: 10-1      Date Filed: 12/13/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                  No. 23-13704
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       EDUARDO GONZALEZ,
       Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 For Judicial Assistance
       in Obtaining Evidence for Use in
       Foreign International Proceedings,
                                                      Petitioner-Appellee,
       versus
       VERFRUCO FOODS, INC.,

                                                   Respondent-Appellant,

       VICTOR SEBASTIAN MAURICIO, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-13704      Document: 10-1       Date Filed: 12/13/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-13704

                                                                Respondents.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:20-mc-24628-DPG
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Verfruco Foods, Inc. (“Verfruco”) appeals a magistrate
       judge’s August 8, 2022 report and recommendation (“R&R”) that
       Eduardo Gonzalez be awarded attorney’s fees, the district court’s
       February 8, 2023 order adopting the R&R and directing Gonzalez
       to move for a specific amount of fees, and the magistrate judge’s
       October 6, 2023 order awarding attorney’s fees in the amount of
       $28,660.
               We lack jurisdiction to directly review the magistrate
       judge’s October 6, 2023 order, as an appeal from that order must
       be taken to the district court first. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Donovan v.
       Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066–67 (11th Cir. 1982); United
       States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009). Even if the
       district court ultimately affirms that order, the subsequent affir-
       mance would not cure this premature notice of appeal. See Pe-
       rez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir.
USCA11 Case: 23-13704     Document: 10-1     Date Filed: 12/13/2023    Page: 3 of 3

       23-13704              Opinion of the Court                        3

       1998) (holding that a magistrate judge’s R&R was not final and ap-
       pealable where the district court had not adopted it before the no-
       tice of appeal was filed).
              Because the district court has not affirmed the magistrate
       judge’s attorney’s fees award or otherwise rendered it final, there
       is no final order on attorney’s fees. As we noted in our previous
       order dismissing in part Verfruco’s prior appeal from the district
       court’s February 8, 2023 order, that order and the magistrate
       judge’s underlying August 8, 2022 R&R are not final or immedi-
       ately appealable because they did not determine the attorney’s fees
       amount. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22
       F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022); PlayNation Play Sys., Inc. v. Velex
       Corp., 939 F.3d 1205, 1212 (11th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, we lack
       jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
              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.