Matthew Klein v. Dian Oved

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 13, 2024
• Docket: 23-14105
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-14105 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-14105 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

MATTHEW KLEIN, THE HEALTH SPECTRUM, LLC, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants MARY ELKINS, Counter Defendant-Appellant, versus DIAN OVED, OVED MEDIA INTERNATIONAL INC., d.b.a. Empower Digital,

Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees USCA11 Case: 23-14105 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 23-14105

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cv-80160-KAM ____________________

Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, 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. In October 2022, Matthew Klein filed a complaint against Dian Oved. Oved raised multiple counterclaims against Klein, al- leging that he fraudulently misrepresented himself as a spiritual healer, and named Klein’s business partner, Mary Elkins, as an ad- ditional counter-defendant. Klein and Elkins moved separately to dismiss Oved’s counterclaims, with Klein claiming that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the counterclaims be- cause they raised questions of religious belief that cannot be re- solved by the courts under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. In an order entered November 16, 2023, the district court determined that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not apply to Oved’s counterclaims as pleaded and the action would proceed, noting that Klein and Elkins could reassert the doctrine as a defense if facts emerged in support. Klein and Elkins filed a notice of appeal from the November 16, 2023, order. USCA11 Case: 23-14105 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 3 of 4

23-14105 Opinion of the Court 3

The November 16, 2023, order is not final or appealable. The order is not final because the district court case is ongoing, with an amended set of counterclaims pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000). Additionally, the order is not immediately appealable pursu- ant to the collateral order doctrine. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014). An order is immediately appealable under that doctrine if it: (1) conclusively determines the disputed question; (2) resolves an important issue completely separate from and collateral to the merits of the action; and (3) would be effec- tively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment. Id. The November 16, 2023, order did not conclusively deter- mine whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine could shield Klein and Elkins from liability. See id. The applicability of that doc- trine is not collateral to the issue of whether Klein and Elkins used spirituality to defraud Oved or held sincere religious beliefs, i.e., the issue of whether the doctrine applies is not completely separate from the merits of Oved’s counterclaims. See id. And the Novem- ber 16, 2023, order is reviewable from a final judgment without los- ing the benefit of the doctrine, which prevents courts from decid- ing matters of ecclesiastical beliefs and governance but does not immunize religious groups or figures from suit. See Richard- son-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 430-31 (1985); Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 107 (2009); Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, USCA11 Case: 23-14105 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 23-14105

446-47 (1969); Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 709-10 (1976); Crowder v. S. Baptist Convention, 828 F.2d 718, 727 (11th Cir. 1987); Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602-03 (1979).