MCS of Tampa, Inc. v. David M. Snyder

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: July 23, 2024
• Docket: 24-11508
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-11508 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 07/23/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11508 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

MCS OF TAMPA, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DAVID M. SNYDER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:24-cv-00608-WFJ-CPT USCA11 Case: 24-11508 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 07/23/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-11508

Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: David Snyder appeals from the district court’s two April 8, 2024 orders granting MCS of Tampa, Inc.’s motion to remand and denying as moot Snyder’s motion to consolidate. MCS moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The remand order is not an appealable order because it granted MCS’s timely motion to remand based on procedural de- fects in the removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d); New v. Sports & Recreation, 114 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (11th Cir. 1997); Whole Health Chiropractic & Wellness, Inc. v. Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 254 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). Although Snyder argues that the ex- ception for cases removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1443 applies here, it does not. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); BP p.l.c. v. Mayor of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021). The case was not removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1443 because his notice of removal never referenced either statute, nor did it indicate that he was a federal officer or that he had been denied or was attempting to en- force a civil right of equality. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1443; Thompson v. Brown, 434 F.2d 1092, 1096 (5th Cir. 1970); Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824 & n.22 (1966). Snyder only stated that the action was removable “pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441.” Because we do not have jurisdiction to review the remand order, we are unable to provide meaningful relief regarding the USCA11 Case: 24-11508 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 07/23/2024 Page: 3 of 3

24-11508 Opinion of the Court 3

district court’s denial of Snyder’s motion to consolidate, and thus the appeal of that order is moot. See Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, MCS’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Snyder’s motion to supplement the record is DENIED as moot.