Erik Mishiyev v. YouTube, LLC

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-14050

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ERIK MISHIYEV, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus YOUTUBE, LLC, SUNDAR PICHAI,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:24-cv-02675-MSS-TGW

2

2 Opinion of the Court 24-14050

____________________

Before JORDAN, LUCK, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction . Erik Mishiyev, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s endorsed order staying the case and its order transferring the case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

We lack jurisdiction over Mishiyev’s appeal because those orders are not final and appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to “final decisions of the district courts”); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (stating that an order is appealable if it is either final or falls into a specific class of interlocutory orders made appealable by statute or jurisprudential exception); Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 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 transferring a case under § 1404(a) is interlocutory and non-appealable); Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stone, 743 F.2d 1519, 1522-23 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding that a stay order is generally not final under § 1291 for purposes of appeal).

All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 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.