Court Opinion

ID: 9966328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 18:01:13.280568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:46.598321
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-11024    Document: 12-1     Date Filed: 05/06/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 24-11024
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       AST & SCIENCE LLC,
                                  Plaintiﬀ-Counter Defendant-Appellee,
       versus
       DELCLAUX PARTNERS SA,

                               Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-23335-DPG
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 24-11024       Document: 12-1      Date Filed: 05/06/2024      Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   24-11024

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Delclaux Partners SA’s (“Delclaux”) amended notice of ap-
       peal challenges various orders, including (1) the district court’s or-
       der and judgment granting appellee AST & Science LLC’s motion
       for summary judgment on Delclaux’s amended counterclaim, and
       (2) the district court’s denial of Delclaux’s motion for relief from
       judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4),
       which alleged that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdic-
       tion in the first instance. Regardless of whether Delclaux’s Rule 60
       motion tolled the appeal period, the statutory time limit required
       Delclaux to file a notice of appeal by March 25, 2024—the first busi-
       ness day after the 30-day appeal period following the February 23
       order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A),
       26(a)(1)(C). However, Delclaux did not file its amended notice of
       appeal until April 2, 2024.
               Delclaux is incorrect to suggest that it could file its notice of
       appeal from the Rule 60 motion at any time because that motion
       only raised arguments concerning the district court’s subject mat-
       ter jurisdiction. Although subject matter jurisdiction may be raised
       at any point during proceedings, including on appeal, the timely
       filing of a notice of appeal is nevertheless a statutory prerequisite
       to appellate review in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); United
       States v. Giraldo-Prado, 150 F.3d 1328, 1329 (11th Cir. 1998); Green v.
       Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that
USCA11 Case: 24-11024       Document: 12-1       Date Filed: 05/06/2024       Page: 3 of 3

       24-11024                 Opinion of the Court                            3

       the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
       requirement, and we cannot entertain an appeal that is out of
       time). Thus, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot invoke
       our appellate jurisdiction. See Green, 606 F.3d at 1300.
               Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack
       of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No pe-
       tition 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.