Matthew Klein, et al. v. Dian Oved, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-14105
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
MATTHEW KLEIN,
THE HEALTH SPECTRUM, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants
MARY ELKINS,
Counter Defendant-Appellant,
versus
DIAN OVED,
OVED MEDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
d.b.a. Empower Digital,
Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees
USCA11 Case: 23-14105 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-14105
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cv-80160-KAM
____________________
Before NEWSOM , BRASHER , and ABUDU, 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.
In October 2022, Matthew Klein filed a complaint against
Dian Oved. Oved raised multiple counterclaims against Klein, al-
leging that he fraudulently misrepresented himself as a spiritual
healer, and named Klein’s business partner, Mary Elkins, as an ad-
ditional counter-defendant. Klein and Elkins moved separately to
dismiss Oved’s counterclaims, with Klein claiming that the district
court did not have jurisdiction to consider the counterclaims be-
cause they raised questions of religious belief that cannot be re-
solved by the courts under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. In
an order entered November 16, 2023, the district court determined
that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not apply to Oved’s
counterclaims as pleaded and the action would proceed, noting
that Klein and Elkins could reassert the doctrine as a defense if facts
emerged in support. Klein and Elkins filed a notice of appeal from
the November 16, 2023, order.
USCA11 Case: 23-14105 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-14105 Opinion of the Court 3
The November 16, 2023, order is not final or appealable.
The order is not final because the district court case is ongoing,
with an amended set of counterclaims pending. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327
(11th Cir. 2000).
Additionally, the order is not immediately appealable pursu-
ant to the collateral order doctrine. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d
1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014). An order is immediately appealable
under that doctrine if it: (1) conclusively determines the disputed
question; (2) resolves an important issue completely separate from
and collateral to the merits of the action; and (3) would be effec-
tively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment. Id.
The November 16, 2023, order did not conclusively deter-
mine whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine could shield
Klein and Elkins from liability. See id. The applicability of that doc-
trine is not collateral to the issue of whether Klein and Elkins used
spirituality to defraud Oved or held sincere religious beliefs, i.e., the
issue of whether the doctrine applies is not completely separate
from the merits of Oved’s counterclaims. See id. And the Novem-
ber 16, 2023, order is reviewable from a final judgment without los-
ing the benefit of the doctrine, which prevents courts from decid-
ing matters of ecclesiastical beliefs and governance but does not
immunize religious groups or figures from suit. See Richard-
son-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 430-31 (1985); Mohawk Indus.,
Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 107 (2009); Presbyterian Church in U.S.
v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440,
USCA11 Case: 23-14105 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-14105
446-47 (1969); Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S.
696, 709-10 (1976); Crowder v. S. Baptist Convention, 828 F.2d 718,
727 (11th Cir. 1987); Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602-03 (1979).
USCA11 Case: 23-14105 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --