Court Opinion

ID: 9953360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 21:01:15.660675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:46:00.325428
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-14173    Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 03/21/2024    Page: 1 of 3

                                                     [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                 No. 23-14173
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       KATIE ROMANO,
                                                        Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       TD BANK, N.A.,
       a.k.a. TD Bank USA, N.A.,
       TARGET ENTERPRISE, INC.,
       RAS LAVAR LLC,
       a.k.a. Robertson, Anschultz & Schneid, PL.,

                                                     Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 23-14173      Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 03/21/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-14173

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-01293-RBD-EJK
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Upon our review of the record and the responses to the ju-
       risdictional questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
       tion.
               Katie Romano and her counsel, Paul Wersant, appeal from
       the district court’s order sanctioning Wersant and directing Appel-
       lees’ counsel to file notices regarding the amount of costs and fees
       incurred, as well as previous orders related to the sanctions pro-
       ceedings. None of those orders determined the specific amount of
       sanctions for which Wersant is responsible. We thus lack jurisdic-
       tion to consider them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; PlayNation Play Sys.,
       Inc. v. Velex Corp., 939 F.3d 1205, 1212 (11th Cir. 2019). Further, the
       district court’s January 8, 2024 order, which awarded a specific
       amount of monetary sanctions but was entered after the instant
       notice of appeal was filed, does not cure this premature appeal. See
       Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 1378, 1385 (11th Cir. 1986); LaChance
       v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 836-37 (11th Cir. 1998).
            Romano and Wersant also appeal from the district court’s
       December 10, 2023 order dismissing Romano’s action, without
USCA11 Case: 23-14173      Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 03/21/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-14173               Opinion of the Court                          3

       prejudice, pursuant to her November 17, 2023 notice of voluntary
       dismissal. Wersant does not have standing to appeal that ruling
       because he is not a party to Romano’s action. See Marino v. Ortiz,
       484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988). And Romano lacks standing to challenge
       the dismissal order because it is not adverse to her, as it merely rec-
       ognized the voluntary dismissal she sought by filing her notice. See
       Versa Prods., Inc. v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 387 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th
       Cir. 2004); Ortega Trujillo v. Banco Cent. del Ecuador, 379 F.3d 1298,
       1301 (11th Cir. 2004).