Carlos A. Alonso Cano v. 245 C&C, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: December 15, 2023
• Docket: 23-13530
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-13530 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2023 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13530 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

CARLOS A. ALONSO CANO, as next friend of his minor daughters, Katy Alonso Morejon and Jany Leidy Alonso Morejon, FE MOREJON FERNANDEZ, KATY A MOREJON, ANGIE A MOREJON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, JANY L. ALONSO, Interested Party-Appellant. versus USCA11 Case: 23-13530 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2023 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13530

245 C&C, LLC, CFH GROUP, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-21826-JAL ____________________

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Carlos Cano and his family appeal from four non-final orders concerning discovery sanctions, an evidentiary motion, a motion for judicial notice, and various motions to strike different filings. The non-final orders became reviewable after the district court en- tered its July 20, 2023, final order and judgment. 1 See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c); Akin v. PAFEC Ltd., 991 F.2d 1550, 1563 (11th Cir. 1993).

1 A magistrate judge issued one of the four designated orders. While we typi-

cally cannot review decisions of a magistrate judge directly, the parties con- sented to a magistrate judge issuing final orders on motions concerning dis- covery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Therefore, the magistrate judge’s order may be appealed directly to this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). USCA11 Case: 23-13530 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2023 Page: 3 of 3

23-13530 Opinion of the Court 3

Appellants filed a postjudgment motion on July 21, 2023, tolling the time to appeal these orders until the resolution of that motion on the same day. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 258-59 (11th Cir. 1988). Thus, the 30-day statutory time limit required appellants to file a notice of appeal on or before August 21, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 26(a)(1)(C). However, appellants did not file the notice of appeal that created this appeal until October 20, 2023. Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot in- voke our appellate jurisdiction. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. Of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 21 (2017). Appellants earlier, timely notice of appeal from the final judgment remains pending in appeal number 23-12413. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.