Court Opinion

ID: 9919269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-17 20:01:13.083632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:44.559407
License: Public Domain

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

                                     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: 2 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 Com-
       mission’s (“SEC”) motion to allow alternate service and explaining
       the court’s June 17, 2022, paperless order granting the SEC’s mo-
       tion for a preliminary injunction. These are not final and appeala-
       ble 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 al-
       ternate 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 col-
       lateral order doctrine because a challenge of the district court’s
USCA11 Case: 23-11139       Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 01/17/2024      Page: 3 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 ap-
       pellate jurisdiction because the relevant issue otherwise on appeal
       is whether the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunc-
       tion 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 appeal-
       able 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. Jeffer-
       son County, 280 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. Mei-
       burg, 296 F.3d 1021, 1029 (11th Cir. 2002). However, we may con-
       sider the district court’s explanation in reviewing appeal No.
       22‑12281, which was taken directly from the paperless order issu-
       ing 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 dock-
       eted 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: 4 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.