Alin Pop v. LuliFama.com LLC, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12684
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
ALIN POP,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LULIFAMA.COM LLC,
MY LULIBABE LLC,
LOURDES HANIMIAN,
a.k.a. Luli Hanimian,
TAYLOR MACKENZIE GALLO,
a.k.a. Tequila Taylor,
ALEXA COLLINS, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-12684 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/02/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12684
Defendants-Appellees,
GABRIELLE EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-02698-VMC-JSS
____________________
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, 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. Alin Pop appeals from the district court’s July 20, 2023,
order dismissing his action as to multiple defendants. On July 27,
2023, after Pop voluntarily dismissed the sole remaining defendant,
the district court entered an order closing the case, rendering the
July 20, 2023, order reviewable. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(4); Akin v.
PAFEC Ltd., 991 F.2d 1550, 1563 (11th Cir. 1993).
However, after Pop filed his notice of appeal, a previously
dismissed defendant, Gabrielle Epstein, filed a timely motion to re-
open the action against her and reconsider her motion to dismiss
USCA11 Case: 23-12684 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/02/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-12684 Opinion of the Court 3
on the merits, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b); Finch v. City of
Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 258-59 (11th Cir. 1988). The district court
retained jurisdiction to consider that motion and granted it, rein-
stating Epstein’s motion to dismiss the action against her. See Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B). The reopened action and motion to dismiss
remain pending before the district court.
Therefore, there is no final judgment from which to appeal
the district court’s July 20, 2023, order. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. City
of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); Supreme Fuels
Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2012); Ol-
iver v. Home Indem. Co., 470 F.2d 329, 329-30 (5th Cir. 1972). Ac-
cordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291.
USCA11 Case: 23-12684 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/02/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --