Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

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 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Mariano Ospina Baraya v. Francisco Ospina Baraya

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-12713
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12713 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-12713
Non-Argument Calendar

MARIANO OSPINA BARAYA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus

FRANCISCO JAVIER OSPINA BARAYA,
ANGELA MERCEDES OSPINA BARAYA,
RAFAEL IGNACIO OSPINA BARAYA,
PATRICIA HELENA OSPINA BARAYA,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-24581-KMW

Before GRANT, LAGOA, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 25-12713 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12713

Mariano Ospina Baraya appeals from the district court’s July
9, 2025, order finding that he had not shown valid proof of service
on any defendant and denying as moot his motion for summary
judgment. We lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
Appellate jurisdiction generally is limited to final decisions
of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “A final decision is one
which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the
court to do but execute the judgment.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of
Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks
omitted). The collateral order doctrine, which is “best under-
stood . . . as a practical construction of [the final decision rule],” al-
lows for appeal of a nonfinal order if it conclusively resolves an im-
portant issue separate from the merits of an action and would be
effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment. See
Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 989 (11th Cir. 2022)
(quotation marks omitted).
An order denying summary judgment is not a final decision
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it “amounts to a decision that the
claim remains pending for trial and is therefore interlocutory.” Pit-
ney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365, 1369 (11th Cir. 1983). Nor
is such an order generally appealable under the collateral order doc-
trine, because “by its very nature a denial of summary judgment
cannot be conclusive.” In re Smith, 735 F.2d 459, 461 (11th Cir.
1984). If a notice of appeal is filed from an interlocutory order that
does not dispose of any claims or parties, a subsequent final order
USCA11 Case: 25-12713 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-12713 Opinion of the Court 3

generally does not retroactively validate the premature notice of
appeal. See Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 1378, 1385 (11th Cir. 1986).
Here, the July 9 order was not final because it did not dispose
of any of Baraya’s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Pitney Bowes, 701
F.2d at 1369. Nor is it appealable under the collateral order doc-
trine, because it (1) did not conclusively determine the disputed is-
sue, as the court gave Baraya additional time to perfect service of
process, and (2) could be effectively reviewed upon final judgment.
See Smith, 735 F.2d at 461; Acheron, 22 F.4th at 989. Finally, alt-
hough the district court later entered a final order dismissing the
action, that does not cure Baraya’s premature notice of appeal. See
Robinson, 798 F.2d at 1385.
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack
of jurisdiction.