USCA11 Case: 24-12158 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12158 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROYAL BENGAL LOGISTICS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

CONSTANTINA CELICOURT, et al.,

Defendants, USCA11 Case: 24-12158 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12158 SANJAY SINGH,

Defendant-Appellant,

TD BANK, N.A.,

Respondent.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:23-cv-61179-DSL ____________________ Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. Sanjay Singh, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s omnibus pretrial order that denied: (1) his motion to alter or amend an ear- lier order denying Singh’s motion for sanctions, (2) his motion to take judicial notice of certain facts, and (3) his amended motion to quash his deposition on the basis that, as a party to the case, the deposition was akin to one of opposing counsel and would seek information that was privileged or protected by the work product USCA11 Case: 24-12158 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 3 of 4

24-12158 Opinion of the Court 3 doctrine. The SEC argues that the court’s order was neither a final order, because it did not end the case on the merits; nor an appeal- able interlocutory order, because it is effectively reviewable on ap- peal from a final judgment.

We agree. The district court’s omnibus order did not end the litigation on the merits, and it is therefore not an appealable final judgment. World Fuel Corp. v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2009). Additionally, the order is not immediately appeal- able under the collateral order doctrine because Singh may raise arguments about each ruling in the court’s omnibus order after a final judgment is issued in the case. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (providing that the collateral order doctrine permits review of interlocutory orders that (1) conclu- sively determine a disputed question; (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action; and (3) are effec- tively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment); Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1004 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating that in- terlocutory discovery orders are generally not immediately appeal- able); see also Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty, 527 U.S. 198, 205-10 (1999) (holding that an order imposing sanctions on counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4) was not immediately appealable as it was not separate from the merits and it was reviewable on appeal fol- lowing final judgment); DeSisto College, Inc. v. Line, 888 F.2d 755, 762 (11th Cir. 1989) (explaining that the immediate reviewability of a sanctions order is determined by whether it is directed at “a non- party who might not be able to obtain review from a final judg- ment”); Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103 (2009) USCA11 Case: 24-12158 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 24-12158 (stating that pretrial orders directing a party to disclose materials on the grounds that the party had waived the attorney-client privi- lege are not immediately appealable); Drummond Co., Inc. v. Col- lingsworth, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, 816 F.3d 1319, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2016) (stating that where the privilege holder is a party to the un- derlying litigation, he can vindicate his rights through an appeal af- ter final judgment).

Finally, Singh appears to challenge an earlier district court ruling denying his motion for judgment on the pleadings, which is not contained in the omnibus order. But that ruling is not final or immediately appealable either, as it is neither separate from the merits nor unreviewable after final judgment. See Plaintiff A, 744 F.3d at 1252-53.

This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All pend- ing motions are denied as MOOT.