Court Opinion

ID: 9917015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 15:00:39.880388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:55:03.377252
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13968     Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 01/11/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                     In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                  No. 23-13968
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED INC.,
       a Florida corporation,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       TRINA SOLAR (U.S.) INC,
       a Delaware corporation,
       TRINA SOLAR LIMITED,
       a Cayman Islands company,
       JOINT VENTURE,
       between Trina Solar (U.S.) Inc.
       and Trina Solar Limited,
USCA11 Case: 23-13968      Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 01/11/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-13968

                                                     Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 9:23-cv-81111-RLR
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, BRANCH, and GRANT, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Allco Finance Limited Inc. appeals from the district court’s
       order granting the appellees’ motion to compel arbitration and stay
       the case. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to close the
       case for statistical purposes and noted that closure would not affect
       the merits of any party’s claim.
               An appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order
       that compels arbitration and stays, rather than dismisses, the ac-
       tion. 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)-(3); see Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. v.
       Makarewicz, 122 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir. 1997) (dismissing for lack
       of jurisdiction appeal of an order compelling arbitration, staying
       proceedings, and administratively closing the case); Green Tree Fin.
       Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 87 n.2 (2000) (noting that if the
       district court had entered a stay, rather than a dismissal, the order
       would not have been appealable, per § 16(b)(1)). The district
       court’s order here stayed, rather than dismissed, the case and
USCA11 Case: 23-13968      Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 01/11/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-13968               Opinion of the Court                          3

       expressly contemplated further proceedings. Cf. Martinez v. Carni-
       val Corp., 744 F.3d 1240, 1244 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that adminis-
       tratively closing a case is not the same as dismissing a case and ﬁnd-
       ing that order compelling arbitration was immediately appealable
       where it “[n]otably . . . did not stay the proceedings, nor did it con-
       template any further action on this case”). We thus lack jurisdic-
       tion to consider the order.
              No petition for rehearing may be ﬁled unless it complies
       with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all
       other applicable rules.