Court Opinion

ID: 9914746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-02 20:00:52.086642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:23.182298
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12684      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 01/02/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                            ____________________

                                  No. 23-12684
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

       ALIN POP,
       individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
                                                        Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       LULIFAMA.COM LLC,
       MY LULIBABE LLC,
       LOURDES HANIMIAN,
       a.k.a. Luli Hanimian,
       TAYLOR MACKENZIE GALLO,
       a.k.a. Tequila Taylor,
       ALEXA COLLINS, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-12684     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 01/02/2024    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-12684

                                                    Defendants-Appellees,

       GABRIELLE EPSTEIN,

                                                                Defendant.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-02698-VMC-JSS
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, 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. Alin Pop appeals from the district court’s July 20, 2023,
       order dismissing his action as to multiple defendants. On July 27,
       2023, after Pop voluntarily dismissed the sole remaining defendant,
       the district court entered an order closing the case, rendering the
       July 20, 2023, order reviewable. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(4); Akin v.
       PAFEC Ltd., 991 F.2d 1550, 1563 (11th Cir. 1993).
             However, after Pop filed his notice of appeal, a previously
       dismissed defendant, Gabrielle Epstein, filed a timely motion to re-
       open the action against her and reconsider her motion to dismiss
USCA11 Case: 23-12684       Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 01/02/2024      Page: 3 of 3

       23-12684                Opinion of the Court                           3

       on the merits, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Fed.
       R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b); Finch v. City of
       Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 258-59 (11th Cir. 1988). The district court
       retained jurisdiction to consider that motion and granted it, rein-
       stating Epstein’s motion to dismiss the action against her. See Fed.
       R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B). The reopened action and motion to dismiss
       remain pending before the district court.
               Therefore, there is no final judgment from which to appeal
       the district court’s July 20, 2023, order. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. City
       of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); Supreme Fuels
       Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2012); Ol-
       iver v. Home Indem. Co., 470 F.2d 329, 329-30 (5th Cir. 1972). Ac-
       cordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See 28 U.S.C.
       § 1291.