Katie Romano v. TD Bank, N.A., et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-14173
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
KATIE ROMANO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TD BANK, N.A.,
a.k.a. TD Bank USA, N.A.,
TARGET ENTERPRISE, INC.,
RAS LAVAR LLC,
a.k.a. Robertson, Anschultz & Schneid, PL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 23-14173 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-14173
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-01293-RBD-EJK
____________________
Before J ORDAN, J ILL PRYOR , and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon our review of the record and the responses to the ju-
risdictional questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
tion.
Katie Romano and her counsel, Paul Wersant, appeal from
the district court’s order sanctioning Wersant and directing Appel-
lees’ counsel to file notices regarding the amount of costs and fees
incurred, as well as previous orders related to the sanctions pro-
ceedings. None of those orders determined the specific amount of
sanctions for which Wersant is responsible. We thus lack jurisdic-
tion to consider them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; PlayNation Play Sys.,
Inc. v. Velex Corp., 939 F.3d 1205, 1212 (11th Cir. 2019). Further, the
district court’s January 8, 2024 order, which awarded a specific
amount of monetary sanctions but was entered after the instant
notice of appeal was filed, does not cure this premature appeal. See
Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 1378, 1385 (11th Cir. 1986); LaChance
v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 836-37 (11th Cir. 1998).
Romano and Wersant also appeal from the district court’s
December 10, 2023 order dismissing Romano’s action, without
USCA11 Case: 23-14173 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-14173 Opinion of the Court 3
prejudice, pursuant to her November 17, 2023 notice of voluntary
dismissal. Wersant does not have standing to appeal that ruling
because he is not a party to Romano’s action. See Marino v. Ortiz,
484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988). And Romano lacks standing to challenge
the dismissal order because it is not adverse to her, as it merely rec-
ognized the voluntary dismissal she sought by filing her notice. See
Versa Prods., Inc. v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 387 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th
Cir. 2004); Ortega Trujillo v. Banco Cent. del Ecuador, 379 F.3d 1298,
1301 (11th Cir. 2004).
USCA11 Case: 23-14173 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --