U.S. Bank, National Association as legal title tru v. Valeria Taveras

USCA11 Case: 23-13384 Document: 8-2 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 1 of 3
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13384
____________________
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR
TRUMAN 2016 SC6 TITLE TRUST,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VALERIA TAVERAS,
a.k.a. Valeria Rosa Taveras,
ELIEZER TAVERAS,
a.k.a. Eliezer Taveras, Sr.,
Defendants-Appellants,
REUNION RESORT & CLUB OF
ORLANDO MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC. et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-13384 Document: 8-2 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Order of the Court 23-13384
Defendants.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-01493-WWB-EJK
____________________
Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
This appeal is DISMISSED in part, sua sponte, for lack of ju-
risdiction. Eliezar Taveras and Valeria Taveras appeal, pro se, from
a magistrate judge’s September 12, 2022, order denying them leave
to amend their notice of removal. The magistrate judge’s order,
however, is not final or appealable to this Court, as an appeal from
a magistrate judge’s order must be taken to the district court. See
United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009). Even
if the district judge ultimately affirms the order, that subsequent
affirmance would not cure the Taverases’s premature notice of ap-
peal. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272,
1273 (11th Cir. 1998).
The Taverases also appeal the district court’s October 11,
2023, order remanding the underlying action to state court. The
order was based on the district court’s lack of subject matter juris-
diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), and we generally lack jurisdiction
to review such orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)-(d). However,
USCA11 Case: 23-13384 Document: 8-2 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 3 of 3
23-13384 Order of the Court 3
because the Taverases’s notice of removal listed 28 U.S.C. § 1443as a basis for removal, we have jurisdiction to review the district
court’s remand order, including its implicit determination that re-
moval was not warranted under § 1443. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)-(d);
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021); Alabama v.
Conley, 245 F.3d 1292, 1293 n.1 (11th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate
judge’s September 12, 2022, order. However, this appeal may pro-
ceed as to the district court’s October 11, 2023, remand order.
No motion for reconsideration may be filed unless it com-
plies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2
and all other applicable rules.