Court Opinion

ID: 9950271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 18:00:46.903742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:19.186911
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-14105   Document: 28-1    Date Filed: 03/13/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-14105
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       MATTHEW KLEIN,
       THE HEALTH SPECTRUM, LLC,
                             Plaintiﬀs-Counter Defendants-Appellants
       MARY ELKINS,
                                         Counter Defendant-Appellant,
       versus
       DIAN OVED,
       OVED MEDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
       d.b.a. Empower Digital,

                             Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees
USCA11 Case: 23-14105      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-14105

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cv-80160-KAM
                           ____________________

       Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the
       jurisdictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of juris-
       diction.
              In October 2022, Matthew Klein filed a complaint against
       Dian Oved. Oved raised multiple counterclaims against Klein, al-
       leging that he fraudulently misrepresented himself as a spiritual
       healer, and named Klein’s business partner, Mary Elkins, as an ad-
       ditional counter-defendant. Klein and Elkins moved separately to
       dismiss Oved’s counterclaims, with Klein claiming that the district
       court did not have jurisdiction to consider the counterclaims be-
       cause they raised questions of religious belief that cannot be re-
       solved by the courts under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. In
       an order entered November 16, 2023, the district court determined
       that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not apply to Oved’s
       counterclaims as pleaded and the action would proceed, noting
       that Klein and Elkins could reassert the doctrine as a defense if facts
       emerged in support. Klein and Elkins filed a notice of appeal from
       the November 16, 2023, order.
USCA11 Case: 23-14105      Document: 28-1       Date Filed: 03/13/2024      Page: 3 of 4

       23-14105                Opinion of the Court                           3

              The November 16, 2023, order is not final or appealable.
       The order is not final because the district court case is ongoing,
       with an amended set of counterclaims pending. See 28 U.S.C.
       § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327
       (11th Cir. 2000).
              Additionally, the order is not immediately appealable pursu-
       ant to the collateral order doctrine. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d
       1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014). An order is immediately appealable
       under that doctrine if it: (1) conclusively determines the disputed
       question; (2) resolves an important issue completely separate from
       and collateral to the merits of the action; and (3) would be effec-
       tively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment. Id.
               The November 16, 2023, order did not conclusively deter-
       mine whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine could shield
       Klein and Elkins from liability. See id. The applicability of that doc-
       trine is not collateral to the issue of whether Klein and Elkins used
       spirituality to defraud Oved or held sincere religious beliefs, i.e., the
       issue of whether the doctrine applies is not completely separate
       from the merits of Oved’s counterclaims. See id. And the Novem-
       ber 16, 2023, order is reviewable from a final judgment without los-
       ing the benefit of the doctrine, which prevents courts from decid-
       ing matters of ecclesiastical beliefs and governance but does not
       immunize religious groups or figures from suit. See Richard-
       son-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 430-31 (1985); Mohawk Indus.,
       Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 107 (2009); Presbyterian Church in U.S.
       v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440,
USCA11 Case: 23-14105     Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2024    Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                 23-14105

       446-47 (1969); Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S.
       696, 709-10 (1976); Crowder v. S. Baptist Convention, 828 F.2d 718,
       727 (11th Cir. 1987); Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602-03 (1979).