USCA11 Case: 23-11067 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11067
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
DAVID SAULSBERRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRITNEY ELDER,
a.k.a. FTN Bae,
Defendant- Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-62362-RS
USCA11 Case: 23-11067 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11067
____________________
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After reviewing the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional
questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. David
Saulsberry appeals from the district court’s March 6, 2023 order va-
cating the final judgment and granting a new trial. However, we
lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the order is non-final and
not subject to immediate review. See
28 U.S.C. § 1291; World Fuel
Corp. v. Geithner,
568 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining
that “[a] final order is one that ends the litigation on the merits and
leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment” (quo-
tation marks omitted)); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City,
235
F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (same).
The district court’s order granting a new trial makes clear
that the litigation has not ended on the merits and is therefore not
final. Geithner,
568 F.3d at 1348. Additionally, an order granting a
new trial is an interlocutory order and generally appealable only
after the verdict in the new trial, unless coupled with entry of judg-
ment as a matter of law. See Deas v. PACCAR, Inc.,
775 F.2d 1498,
1503 (11th Cir. 1985) (providing that the grant of a new trial is an
interlocutory order subject to appellate review only if coupled with
a grant of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict); see
also Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,
449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980) (explain-
ing that the grant of a new trial is generally only appealable after
USCA11 Case: 23-11067 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 3 of 3
23-11067 Opinion of the Court 3
the verdict in the new trial). Finally, the order is not appealable
under the collateral order doctrine, as it is capable of review after
an appeal from a subsequent final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair,
744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (setting out the require-
ments for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine);
see also Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller,
472 U.S. 424, 430-31 (1985)
(stating that the possibility of additional litigation expense is not
alone sufficient to warrant review). Accordingly, we lack jurisdic-
tion over this appeal.
