Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Cynthia Sanders-Bey v. Judge

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-14545
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-14545 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-14545
Non-Argument Calendar

CYNTHIA SANDERS-BEY,
FARRAND DERMOT CLARKE-EL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants.
versus

JUDGE,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:25-cv-62319-DSL

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Cynthia Sanders-Bey and Farrand Clarke-El appeal from the
district court’s orders granting the defendant’s motion for an
USCA11 Case: 25-14545 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-14545

extension of time and denying the appellants’ motion to reconsider
the extension of time and to disqualify defense counsel.
The appealed orders are not final because they did not end
the litigation on the merits. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see CSX Transp. Inc.
v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000)
(explaining that a final judgment leaves nothing for the district
court to do but execute the judgment). The orders did not even
address the merits but instead merely gave the defendant more
time to answer the complaint and refused to disqualify defendant’s
counsel.
The orders are not immediately appealable under the
collateral order doctrine because they are effectively reviewable on
appeal from a final judgment, as delaying review until then would
not imperil a substantial public interest. Acheron Cap., Ltd. v.
Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 989 (11th Cir. 2022) (explaining that, among
other requirements, an order must be effectively unreviewable on
appeal from a final judgment to be appealable under the collateral
order doctrine); Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 107
(2009); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 378-79
(1981) (holding that a denial of a motion to disqualify counsel is
effectively reviewable on appeal after a final judgment). Nor does
the district court’s subsequent dismissal of the appellants’ amended
complaint cure their premature appeal. See Robinson v. Tanner,
798 F.2d 1378, 1382-83 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining that a
subsequent final judgment cures a premature appeal only when the
appeal is from an otherwise final order dismissing a claim or party).
USCA11 Case: 25-14545 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-14545 Opinion of the Court 3

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack
of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.