Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-11139/USCOURTS-ca11-23-11139-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11139

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MCC INTERNATIONAL CORP., 

d.b.a. Mining Capital Coin Corp., et al.,

Defendants,

LUIZ CARLOS CAPUCI, JR., 

a.k.a. Junior Caputti, 

USCA11 Case: 23-11139 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11139

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-14129-KMM

____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Luiz Carlos Capuci, Jr. appeals from the district court’s two 

March 8, 2023, orders granting the Security and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) motion to allow alternate service and explaining 

the court’s June 17, 2022, paperless order granting the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction. These are not final and appealable orders because the district court has not yet resolved the rights 

and liabilities of all the parties and did not certify either order for 

immediate appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); CSX 

Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 

2000). However, in his notice of appeal, Capuci states that the alternate service order is immediately appealable under the collateral 

order doctrine and pendent appellate jurisdiction. As to the appeal 

from the alternate service order, the SEC moves to dismiss it for 

lack of jurisdiction and moves for summary affirmance.

The alternate service order is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine because a challenge of the district court’s 

USCA11 Case: 23-11139 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 2 of 4
23-11139 Opinion of the Court 3

exercise of personal jurisdiction based on service of process can be 

vindicated following final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 

F.3d 1247, 125252 (11th Cir. 2014); Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 

U.S. 517, 526‐27 (1988). It is also not appealable under pendent appellate jurisdiction because the relevant issue otherwise on appeal 

is whether the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction before service of process. See Jones v. Fransen, 857 F.3d 843, 850 

(11th Cir. 2017); Smith v. LePage, 834 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 

2016). To answer that question, we need not determine whether, 

nine months later, the district court was divested of jurisdiction to 

grant alternate service.

Further, the explanatory order is not an immediately appealable injunction order because it merely explained, but did not alter 

or modify, the preliminary injunction issued by the paperless order. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1); Birmingham Fire Fighters Ass’n 117 v. Jefferson County, 280 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. Meiburg, 296 F.3d 1021, 1029 (11th Cir. 2002). However, we may consider the district court’s explanation in reviewing appeal No. 

22‐12281, which was taken directly from the paperless order issuing the preliminary injunction. Because the first appeal was fully 

briefed before the explanatory order was issued and this appeal is 

now fully briefed, the parties’ briefs from this appeal will be docketed in the first appeal to aid our review.

Accordingly, the SEC’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the 

alternate service order is GRANTED, this appeal is DISMISSED for 

lack of jurisdiction, and the motion to consolidate appeals is 

USCA11 Case: 23-11139 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 23-11139

DENIED as moot. The SEC’s request for summary affirmance is 

DENIED. The clerk is ORDERED to docket the merits briefs from 

this appeal in appeal No. 22‐12281. 

USCA11 Case: 23-11139 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 4 of 4