Carlos A. Alonso Cano, et al v. 245 C&C, LLC, et al, No. 23-13530 (11th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 23-13530 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2023 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-13530 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ CARLOS A. ALONSO CANO, as next friend of his minor daughters, Katy Alonso Morejon and Jany Leidy Alonso Morejon, FE MOREJON FERNANDEZ, KATY A MOREJON, ANGIE A MOREJON, Plainti s-Appellants, JANY L. ALONSO, Interested Party-Appellant. versus USCA11 Case: 23-13530 Document: 10-1 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 23-13530 245 C&C, LLC, CFH GROUP, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-21826-JAL ____________________ Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Carlos Cano and his family appeal from four non- nal orders concerning discovery sanctions, an evidentiary motion, a motion for judicial notice, and various motions to strike di erent lings. The non- nal orders became reviewable after the district court entered its July 20, 2023, nal order and judgment. 1 See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c); Akin v. PAFEC Ltd., 991 F.2d 1550, 1563 (11th Cir. 1993). A magistrate judge issued one of the four designated orders. While we typically cannot review decisions of a magistrate judge directly, the parties consented to a magistrate judge issuing final orders on motions concerning discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Therefore, the magistrate judge’s order may be appealed directly to this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). 1 USCA11 Case: 23-13530 23-13530 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 Appellants led a postjudgment motion on July 21, 2023, tolling the time to appeal these orders until the resolution of that motion on the same day. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 258-59 (11th Cir. 1988). Thus, the 30-day statutory time limit required appellants to le a notice of appeal on or before August 21, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 26(a)(1)(C). However, appellants did not le the notice of appeal that created this appeal until October 20, 2023. Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. Of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 21 (2017). Appellants earlier, timely notice of appeal from the final judgment remains pending in appeal number 23-12413. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.
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.
