Allen Bruce Gottlieb v. Alexander Eisemann, Esq.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: February 5, 2026
• Docket: 25-13988
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-13988 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 02/05/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13988 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

ALLEN BRUCE GOTTLIEB, PHYLLIS J. GOTTLIEB, Individually and as guardian of Jesse H. Gottlieb, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants, versus

ALEXANDER EISEMANN, Esq., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:24-cv-00623-CEM-DCI ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-13988 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 02/05/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13988

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Allen and Phyllis Gottlieb, proceeding pro se, appeal the dis- trict court’s order transferring their case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). We lack jurisdiction over the Gottliebs’ appeal because the district court’s transfer order is not a final order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to “final decisions of the district courts”); Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Muk- amal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (“A final decision is typically one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment.”); Middlebrooks v. Smith, 735 F.2d 431, 432-33 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding that an order trans- ferring a case under § 1404(a) is interlocutory and non-appealable). Further, the order is not appealable under the collateral order doc- trine because it is not effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014); Middlebrooks, 735 F.2d at 433 (explaining that transfer or- ders do not fall within the collateral order doctrine). All pending motions are DENIED as moot.