Court Opinion

ID: 9946929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 19:01:36.569842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:43.301307
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11375   Document: 24-1    Date Filed: 03/01/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-11375
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       DENISE SNEED SAVAGE,
                                           Interested Party-Appellant,
       versus
       GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. USA,
       MARLENE GOLDENBERG,
        APOTEX CORP.,
       MICHAEL MCCANDLESS,
       BRAD ALDRIDGE,
       et.al.,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11375      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 03/01/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11375

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 9:20-md-02924-RLR
                           ____________________

       Before GRANT, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Because Denise Sneed Savage’s notice of appeal did not
       clearly designate any particular order to be appealed, we asked the
       parties to address which order(s) she intended to appeal and the
       basis of our jurisdiction to consider those order(s). See Fed. R. App.
       P. 3(c).
              Liberally construed, Savage’s response to our jurisdictional
       questions and her merits brief indicate that she is challenging: (1)
       an October 4, 2022 paperless order directing her to file a motion to
       proceed in forma pauperis; (2) an October 21, 2022 order consolidat-
       ing her case in multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) and administratively
       closing her individual case; (3) November 4, 2022 and November
       28, 2022 orders denying her motions for referral to a volunteer at-
       torney program; and (4) a December 19, 2022 order clarifying the
       scope of a tolling provision for participation in a voluntary claims
       registry. See Nichols v. Ala. State Bar, 815 F.3d 726, 731 (11th Cir.
       2016) (providing that we “may look to the record, including the
       parties’ briefs, to determine the orders or parts thereof an appellant
       intended to appeal”).
USCA11 Case: 23-11375      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 03/01/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-11375               Opinion of the Court                         3

               Those orders are not final orders that resolved Savage’s case
       on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal,
       22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022). Nor are they immediately ap-
       pealable under the collateral order doctrine, as they either did not
       conclusively resolve a disputed question or are not effectively un-
       reviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair,
       744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a non-final
       ruling may be appealed if it conclusively determines a disputed
       question, resolves an important issue completely separate from the
       merits, and is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judg-
       ment). Although the district court appears to have ended the liti-
       gation on the merits in this MDL during the pendency of this ap-
       peal, its subsequent final judgment does not retroactively validate
       this premature appeal from nonfinal interlocutory orders.
               Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
       tion.