Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-11956 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 Page: 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-11956 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ TODD CONLEY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, versus DANIEL S. VACANTI, ACTIONABLEAGILE, LLC, DANIEL S. VACANTI, INC., Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees, AMH ALBA, LLC, ANN VACANTI, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:23-cv-60384-AHS ____________________ USCA11 Case: 26-11956 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 26-11956 Before NEWSOM, LUCK, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Todd Conley, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s March 31, 2026 and April 6, 2026 orders awarding attorney’s fees to the defendants. A jurisdictional question asked the parties to address whether those orders are final or otherwise appealable, and specifically whether the district court resolved Daniel Vacanti’s counterclaim against Conley. The defendants respond that the orders are neither final nor appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Conley responds that the orders are final post-judgment orders. We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the orders are not final or otherwise appealable. The district court action is not final because the district court did not address, let alone resolve, Daniel Vacanti’s counterclaim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; 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); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that an order disposing of fewer than all claims is not final). The orders are not 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 interest. See Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 989 (11th Cir. 2022) (explaining that, among other requirements, an order must be USCA11 Case: 26-11956 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 Page: 3 of 3 26-11956 Opinion of the Court 3 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) (explaining that the collateral order doctrine applies when delayed review of an order “would imperil a substantial public interest or some particular value of a high order”). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.