Frederic Block v. David Matesic - Appeal of Summary Judgment Order

11th Circuit Published Opinions (CourtListener)

Filed March 24th, 2026

Detected March 24th, 2026

Summary

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a non-precedential opinion regarding the appeal of a district court's summary judgment order. The court determined that the appeals were not timely because a third-party claim had not been resolved, vacating the previous orders and remanding for dismissal of the third-party complaint.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

This non-precedential opinion from the Eleventh Circuit addresses appeals filed by David Matesic and Frederic Block concerning a district court's summary judgment order. The core issue was the timeliness of the appeals, as the district court had not yet resolved a third-party claim filed by Joshua Gerstin against The Palms 2100 Tower One Condominium Association, Inc. The appellate court found that the case was not final until this third-party claim was dismissed, meaning the prior appeals were premature.

Compliance officers should note that this ruling clarifies the finality requirements for appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For ongoing litigation, it underscores the importance of ensuring all claims, including third-party claims, are formally resolved by the district court before filing an appeal. Failure to do so can result in the appeal being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as occurred in this case.

What to do next

Review appellate court's determination on finality of judgment
Ensure all third-party claims are resolved before filing appeals

Source document (simplified)

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 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Frederic Block v. David Matesic

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Citations: None known
Docket Number: 25-12540
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Nature of Suit: NEW
Opinion
Authorities (2)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12540 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-12540
Non-Argument Calendar

FREDERIC BLOCK,
Plaintiﬀ-Counter Defendant-Appellee
Cross Appellant,
versus

DAVID MATESIC,
Individually,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant
Cross Appellee,
CANDYCE ABBATT,
Individually,
JOSHUA GERSTIN,
Individually,
Defendants-Counter Claimants-Cross Appellees,
THE PALMS 2100 TOWER ONE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
USCA11 Case: 25-12540 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12540

Third Party Defendant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-61032-RKA

Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant David Matesic and plaintiff Frederic Block appeal
from the district court’s June 30, 2025, order granting their motions
for summary judgment on each other’s claims. Block also appeals
from the district court’s July 23, 2025, paperless order striking his
motion for reconsideration of the June 2025 order.
We asked the parties to address whether their appeals are
taken from a final decision and, specifically, whether defendant
Joshua Gerstin’s third-party claim against The Palms 2100 Tower
One Condominium Association, Inc. had been resolved. Both par-
ties respond that the June 30, 2025, order resolved all claims, pri-
marily because, in that order, the district court referred to the
third-party claim as moot.
That order did not resolve all claims. As the district court
later stated in another paperless order in response to Gerstin’s re-
quest to proceed with his claim, that third-party claim was still live.
As a result, the case did not become final until the district court
entered a third paperless order dismissing Gerstin’s third-party
complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (“The courts of appeals . . . have
USCA11 Case: 25-12540 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-12540 Opinion of the Court 3

jurisdiction [over] appeals from all final decisions of the district
courts.”); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327
(11th Cir. 2000) (“A final decision is one which ends the litigation
on the merits.” (quotation marks omitted)); Supreme Fuels Trading
FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining,
conversely, that a ruling that disposes of fewer than all claims of all
parties is not final).
Accordingly, Matesic’s appeal and Block’s cross-appeal are
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are
DENIED as moot.