Court Opinion

ID: 9404930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 19:01:17.279539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:18.113317
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11067    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 06/26/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11067
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       DAVID SAULSBERRY,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       BRITNEY ELDER,
       a.k.a. FTN Bae,

                                                   Defendant- Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                      D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-62362-RS
USCA11 Case: 23-11067       Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 06/26/2023      Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                    23-11067

                             ____________________

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              After reviewing the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional
       questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. David
       Saulsberry appeals from the district court’s March 6, 2023 order va-
       cating the final judgment and granting a new trial. However, we
       lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the order is non-final and
       not subject to immediate review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; World Fuel
       Corp. v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining
       that “[a] final order is one that ends the litigation on the merits and
       leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment” (quo-
       tation marks omitted)); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235
       F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (same).
               The district court’s order granting a new trial makes clear
       that the litigation has not ended on the merits and is therefore not
       final. Geithner, 568 F.3d at 1348. Additionally, an order granting a
       new trial is an interlocutory order and generally appealable only
       after the verdict in the new trial, unless coupled with entry of judg-
       ment as a matter of law. See Deas v. PACCAR, Inc., 775 F.2d 1498,
       1503 (11th Cir. 1985) (providing that the grant of a new trial is an
       interlocutory order subject to appellate review only if coupled with
       a grant of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict); see
       also Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980) (explain-
       ing that the grant of a new trial is generally only appealable after
USCA11 Case: 23-11067      Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 06/26/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-11067                Opinion of the Court                          3

       the verdict in the new trial). Finally, the order is not appealable
       under the collateral order doctrine, as it is capable of review after
       an appeal from a subsequent final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair,
       744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (setting out the require-
       ments for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine);
       see also Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 430-31 (1985)
       (stating that the possibility of additional litigation expense is not
       alone sufficient to warrant review). Accordingly, we lack jurisdic-
       tion over this appeal.