Securities and Exchange Commission v. Paulo Fernando De Bastos, No. 23-12900 (11th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 23-12900 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-12900 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plainti -Appellee, versus RBF TRUST LLC, a Florida company, et al., Defendants, PAULO FERNANDO DE BASTOS, Defendant-Appellant, USCA11 Case: 23-12900 2 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 23-12900 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cv-61831-AHS ____________________ Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. Paulo Fernando De Bastos appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for deposition via videoconference. The SEC argues that the court’s order was not a final order or an appealable interlocutory order because it was a pretrial discovery order not subject to immediate appeal, De Bastos’s interest in a remote deposition was merely a preference, and the order was not certified for interlocutory review. We agree. We lack jurisdiction to review the court’s order denying De Bastos a remote deposition because it did not end the litigation on the merits, and it is therefore not final and appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; World Fuel Corp. v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2009); Rouse Constr. Int’l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp., 680 F.2d 743, 745 (11th Cir. 1982). Additionally, the order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because De Bastos may raise arguments about the court’s denial of his motion to appear remotely for his deposition after a final USCA11 Case: 23-12900 23-12900 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 judgment is issued in the case. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014); Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 430-31 (1985) (stating that the collateral order doctrine is narrow, and its “reach is limited to trial court orders affecting rights that will be irretrievably lost in the absence of an immediate appeal”). Accordingly, De Bastos’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
