Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. USA et.al. v. Denise Savage, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11375
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
DENISE SNEED SAVAGE,
Interested Party-Appellant,
versus
GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. USA,
MARLENE GOLDENBERG,
APOTEX CORP.,
MICHAEL MCCANDLESS,
BRAD ALDRIDGE,
et.al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11375 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11375
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:20-md-02924-RLR
____________________
Before GRANT, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Because Denise Sneed Savage’s notice of appeal did not
clearly designate any particular order to be appealed, we asked the
parties to address which order(s) she intended to appeal and the
basis of our jurisdiction to consider those order(s). See Fed. R. App.
P. 3(c).
Liberally construed, Savage’s response to our jurisdictional
questions and her merits brief indicate that she is challenging: (1)
an October 4, 2022 paperless order directing her to file a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis; (2) an October 21, 2022 order consolidat-
ing her case in multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) and administratively
closing her individual case; (3) November 4, 2022 and November
28, 2022 orders denying her motions for referral to a volunteer at-
torney program; and (4) a December 19, 2022 order clarifying the
scope of a tolling provision for participation in a voluntary claims
registry. See Nichols v. Ala. State Bar, 815 F.3d 726, 731 (11th Cir.
2016) (providing that we “may look to the record, including the
parties’ briefs, to determine the orders or parts thereof an appellant
intended to appeal”).
USCA11 Case: 23-11375 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-11375 Opinion of the Court 3
Those orders are not final orders that resolved Savage’s case
on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal,
22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022). Nor are they immediately ap-
pealable under the collateral order doctrine, as they either did not
conclusively resolve a disputed question or are not effectively un-
reviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair,
744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a non-final
ruling may be appealed if it conclusively determines a disputed
question, resolves an important issue completely separate from the
merits, and is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judg-
ment). Although the district court appears to have ended the liti-
gation on the merits in this MDL during the pendency of this ap-
peal, its subsequent final judgment does not retroactively validate
this premature appeal from nonfinal interlocutory orders.
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
tion.
USCA11 Case: 23-11375 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --