Aitken v. US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC, No. 19-13381 (11th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Two groups of patients who deposited tissue in a stem-cell bank appealed the district court's denial of their respective motions to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 in an action between the corporation running the bank and the FDA. The district court concluded that the motions were premature and denied them without prejudice. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court's order was not a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1291, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the patients' appeal.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 2, 2021.
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 19-13381 Date Filed: 02/11/2021 Page: 1 of 6 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13381 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cv-61047-UU UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, JAN AITKEN, CAROL BARROWS, DAVID H. BUCKLES, et al., Intervenors - Appellants, versus US STEM CELL CLINIC, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, US STEM CELL, INC., a Florida profit corporation, KRISTIN C. COMELLA, individually, THEODORE GRADEL, individually, Defendants - Appellees. USCA11 Case: 19-13381 Date Filed: 02/11/2021 Page: 2 of 6 ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (February 11, 2021) Before JORDAN, MARCUS, and GINSBURG, ∗ Circuit Judges. GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: Two groups of patients who deposited tissue in a stem-cell “bank” appeal the denial of their respective motions to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 in a suit between the corporation running the bank and the United States Food and Drug Administration. The district court did not reach the question whether the patients met the requirements for intervention. Instead, it found their motions were premature and denied them without prejudice. Because the district court’s order was not a “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we lack jurisdiction to consider the patients’ appeal. I. US Stem Cell, Inc. (the Corporation), is a Florida-based company that offers stem-cell therapies that purportedly treat a host of diseases and conditions. US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC, a subsidiary of the Corporation, provides the ∗ Honorable Douglas H. Ginsburg, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 USCA11 Case: 19-13381 Date Filed: 02/11/2021 Page: 3 of 6 treatments. Separately, the Corporation operates a stem-cell bank where patients can store stem cells for later use in treating chronic conditions. The patientappellants have each deposited stem cells in the bank. In 2018 the FDA sued the Corporation, the Clinic, and an individual associated with both companies. It alleged the defendants’ operations at the Clinic amounted to the misbranding and adulteration of drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq. In June 2019 the district court granted summary judgment for the FDA, United States v. US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC, 403 F. Supp. 3d 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2019), and issued a permanent injunction requiring, among other things, that the defendants: (1) refrain from distributing any stem-cell products until they obtain approval from the FDA, D.E. 83 ¶ 7, and (2) destroy all stem cells in their possession within 30 days, D.E. 83 ¶ 10. The court stayed the destruction provision pending a potential appeal by the defendants. In July 2019 the patients moved to intervene either as-of-right or permissively. The patients also sought to extend the stay of the destruction provision in the district court’s order. If permitted to intervene, the patients would ask the district court to declare either that their stem cells at the bank are outside 3 USCA11 Case: 19-13381 Date Filed: 02/11/2021 Page: 4 of 6 the scope of the injunction or that destruction of their stem cells would violate their rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The district court denied the motions without prejudice in an omnibus order, explaining: [B]oth the relief requested by the putative intervenors and the appropriate forum for their intervention is entirely dependent upon whether Defendants appeal .... As such the Court is unable to rule on the [m]otions at this time. United States v. US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC, No. 0:18-cv-61047, 2019 WL 4647746, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2019). Shortly thereafter the defendants filed a timely notice of appeal, which is pending in this court. As such, the stay of the destruction provision of the injunction remains in place. II. The patients argue we have jurisdiction to hear their appeal from the omnibus order under this circuit’s “anomalous rule.”∗ Where that rule applies, we exercise “provisional jurisdiction” to determine whether a district court erred in denying intervention as of right under Rule 24(a), or clearly abused its discretion in ∗ Alternatively the patients contend they are appealing either the injunction itself or the district court’s implicit denial of their requests to stay the injunction. Initial Br. for Aitken Intervenors 12. Unless and until they successfully intervene, however, the patients remain non-parties and may not appeal any order except one denying intervention. See Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Balt. & O.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 524 (1947); 7C C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1923 (3d Ed. 2020). 4 USCA11 Case: 19-13381 Date Filed: 02/11/2021 Page: 5 of 6 denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). E.g., Fox v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 519 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2008). If we discover no reason to reverse the district court, then “our jurisdiction evaporates” and we dismiss the appeal. Id. In the past, we have applied the anomalous rule in cases where a motion to intervene was considered on its merits and denied with prejudice. We have explained that “such a determination is a ‘final decision’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 that ‘ends the litigation on the merits’ for the intervenor.” Meek v. Metro. Dade Cty., 985 F.2d 1471, 1476 (11th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds, Dillard v. Chilton Cty. Comm’n, 495 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007). This case is different. Here, the district court did not reject the patients’ arguments under Rule 24 or otherwise determine the patients were not entitled to intervene. Rather, it merely stated it was “unable to rule on the motions at this time.” The anomalous rule does not reach this situation because the patients’ motions were not denied. Cf. Smith v. SEECO, Inc., 865 F.3d 1021, 1025 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding denial of a motion to intervene was not appealable where the district court did not make a “final determination,” but instead deferred consideration until “a more appropriate stage in the litigation”); Grilli v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 78 F.3d 1533, 1538 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding an order was not final in part because the district court “anticipated further proceedings with respect to the issues raised”). 5 USCA11 Case: 19-13381 Date Filed: 02/11/2021 Page: 6 of 6 This disposition does not prejudice the patients. They are free to return to the district court and renew their motions. The district court seemed to contemplate they would do so after the defendants filed their notice of appeal or after the defendants’ appeal was resolved. The patients’ motions are presumably no less timely now than they were in July 2019. Cf. McDonald v. E.J. Lavino Co., 430 F.2d 1065, 1074 (5th Cir. 1970) (explaining the flexible nature of the timeliness inquiry).∗∗ In their reply brief the patients argue they were prejudiced by the district court’s decision because it “effectively denied their right to access and use their [stem cells] now.” Reply Br. for Aitken Intervenors 5-6. The patients did not, however, request this relief in their motions before the district court: They sought to stay only the destruction of their stem cells; they did not ask the district court to stay other parts of the injunction and they did not otherwise request immediate access to their stem cells. The district court cannot be faulted for failing to grant relief not requested. III. The patients’ appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. ∗∗ We have adopted all decisions of the Fifth Circuit issued prior to October 1, 1981 as binding precedent. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981). 6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
