USCA11 Case: 25-12180 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12180 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

WARREN MOSLER, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant Appellee, versus

JAMES TODD WAGNER, Defendant-Counter Claimant Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:25-cv-60022-DSL ____________________

Before JORDAN, LUCK, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-12180 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12180

In February 2025, Warren Mosler filed an amended com- plaint against James Wagner, asserting claims for defamation per se and unauthorized publication of Mosler’s name or likeness, in vio- lation of Florida law. Wagner filed an answer, in which he asserted a counterclaim for civil theft. In June 2025, the district court granted Mosler’s motion to dismiss Wagner’s counterclaim and dismissed it without leave to amend. Wagner, pro se, appealed that order. Mosler filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the appeal was not taken from a final judgment. We lack jurisdiction over the appeal. The district court’s or- der dismissing Wagner’s counterclaim was not final because it did not end the litigation on the merits, as Mosler’s claims remain pending before the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); Su- preme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties is not immediately appealable). Additionally, the district court did not certify the order for immediate review. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Finally, the order is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine because the district court’s dismissal of Wagner’s civil theft counterclaim can be effec- tively reviewed after the court disposes of Mosler’s claims. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1253 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that an order that does not conclude the litigation may be appealed USCA11 Case: 25-12180 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-12180 Opinion of the Court 3

under the collateral order doctrine if it, inter alia, is effectively un- reviewable on appeal from a final judgment). Accordingly, Mosler’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.