David W. Langley v. Liza Hazan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: July 8, 2026
• Docket: 25-11728
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-11728 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 07/08/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11728 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

DAVID W. LANGLEY, DAVID W. LANGLEY P.A., Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus

LIZA HAZAN, a.k.a. Liza Hazan, SEAN NEIL MEEHAN, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-21172-EIS ____________________

Before BRANCH, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-11728 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 07/08/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11728

Elizabeth Hazan and Sean Meehan, pro se, removed this ac- tion from state court. On April 24, 2025, the district court entered an order: (1) remanding the action both for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as untimely filed and (2) granting the plaintiffs’ mo- tion for attorney’s fees, though it left unresolved the amount pend- ing a further motion from the plaintiffs. On October 7, 2025, the court entered an order denying Hazan and Meehan’s motion to re- consider the remand. They filed a notice of appeal that challenges both orders. A jurisdictional question (“JQ”) asked the parties to address whether we have jurisdiction to review those orders. Upon review of the record and the response to the JQ, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over both the April 24, 2025 re- mand order and the October 7, 2025 order denying the motion for reconsideration. We lack jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order because the district court based its remand on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Hazan and Meehan did not remove the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1443, and the amount of at- torney fees has not yet been determined. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (providing that we lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s re- mand order); id. §§ 1442, 1443; New v. Sports & Recreation, 114 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that, even when "clearly er- roneous," a remand order based on lack of subject matter jurisdic- tion is unreviewable); contrast Le v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that Section § 1447(d) does not bar re- view of the district court’s awarding of attorney’s fees and costs, USCA11 Case: 25-11728 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 07/08/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-11728 Opinion of the Court 3

even if the remand order is otherwise barred), with Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 3.921 Acres of Land in Lake Cnty. Fla., 947 F.3d 1362, 1370-71 (11th Cir. 2020) (holding that an order which finds a party liable for attorney’s fees and costs without determining the amount is not a final order). Similarly, we lack jurisdiction to re- view the district court’s order denying reconsideration of the re- mand order because that order denied reconsideration of the attor- ney’s fee ruling, which is unreviewable until the amount of fees has been determined. See Sabal, 947 F.3d at 1370-71. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.