Richard Friedberg v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: January 15, 2025
• Docket: 24-13011
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-13011 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/15/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-13011 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

RICHARD HERBERT FRIEDBERG, Petitioner-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

Petition for Review of a Decision of the U.S.Tax Court Agency No. 12456-20L ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-13011 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/15/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13011

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Richard Friedberg petitions for review of the August 21, 2024, order of the U.S. Tax Court denying his motion for permis- sion to depose various employees of the Internal Revenue Service. We issued a jurisdictional question (“JQ”) about whether the Au- gust 21 order is final or otherwise immediately reviewable. In re- sponse to the JQ, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Com- missioner”) filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that we lack jurisdic- tion over this appeal because the August 21 order is not final or otherwise immediately reviewable. The Commissioner also moves to consolidate and dismiss other appeals filed by Friedberg challenging different decisions of the Tax Court from the same un- derlying case. Friedberg did not respond to the JQ or the Commis- sioner’s motion. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal be- cause the August 21 order is not final or otherwise immediately re- viewable. See 26 U.S. § 7482(a)(1) (stating that we have jurisdiction to review decisions of the Tax Court “in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury”); 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (“A final decision is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.”). Discovery orders like this “are ordinarily not final orders that are immediately USCA11 Case: 24-13011 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/15/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-13011 Opinion of the Court 3

appealable.” Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1004 (11th Cir. 2014). And the August 21 order is not reviewable under the collat- eral order doctrine because it is not effectively unreviewable from the final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we GRANT the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss and DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Com- missioner’s motion to consolidate is DENIED, and all other pend- ing motions are DENIED AS MOOT.