Philippe Zatta v. SCI Technology Inc, et al, No. 24-10837 (11th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 24-10837 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10837 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ PHILIPPE ZOGBE ZATTA, Plainti -Appellant, versus SCI TECHNOLOGY INC, SANMINA CORPORATION, ALLSTATES CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama USCA11 Case: 24-10837 2 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 24-10837 D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cv-01707-MHH ____________________ Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Philippe Zatta appeals from the district court’s March 1, 2024 order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s April 26, 2023 order denying his motions for leave to amend the complaint and “for reclassification of plaintiff as an employee for purposes of litigation.” However, neither order is final or immediately appealable. The orders are not final decisions that ended the litigation on the merits, as Zatta’s claims against SCI and Sanmina remand pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022). Nor are the orders immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because they are not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment resolving this case. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment”); Wells v. S. Main Bank, 532 F.2d 1005, 1006 (5th Cir. 1976) (stating that denials of leave to amend pleadings are not final or appealable under the collateral order doctrine). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. USCA11 Case: 24-10837 24-10837 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.
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.
