Court Opinion

ID: 9965794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 15:01:39.140628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:40.176422
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10874   Document: 71-1    Date Filed: 05/03/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-10874
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       TECHNOLOJOY, LLC,
                               Plaintiﬀ-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
       IBRAHIM F. ALGAHIM
                                          Plaintiﬀ-Counter Defendant,
       versus
       BHPH CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC,
       d.b.a. BHPH Capital Services,

                                                          Defendant,
USCA11 Case: 23-10874          Document: 71-1       Date Filed: 05/03/2024   Page: 2 of 4

       2                           Opinion of the Court                23-10874

       SEAN FOUZAILOFF,
       ANATOLIY SLUTSKIY,

                                        Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.

                                ____________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Florida
                       D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-23770-FAM
                             ____________________

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Plaintiff-Appellant Technolojoy appeals from the denial of
       its motion for reconsideration of final judgment and the denial of
       its motion to amend the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Pro-
       cedure 15(b)(2). First, Technolojoy contends that the district court
       erred in setting aside the three $750,000 jury awards 1 in favor of
       Technolojoy under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Prac-
       tices Act (FDUTPA). Second, Technolojoy argues that the district
       court erred by denying its motion to amend the Amended

       1 The three awards were against BHPH Consulting, Sean Fouzailoff, and An-

       atoliy Slutskiy, respectively.
USCA11 Case: 23-10874         Document: 71-1         Date Filed: 05/03/2024          Page: 3 of 4

       23-10874                   Opinion of the Court                                 3

       Complaint to conform to the evidence presented at trial. After
       careful review, we affirm.
               Both orders are subject to an abuse of discretion standard of
       review. We review a district court’s decision to conform the plead-
       ings to the evidence presented at trial for an abuse of discretion.
       See In re Westec Corp., 434 F.2d 195, 203–04 (5th Cir. 1970) (review-
       ing denial of leave to amend pleadings at the end of trial for abuse
       of discretion).2 And we “review the denial of a motion for recon-
       sideration for an abuse of discretion.” Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc., 965
       F.3d 1222, 1234 (11th Cir. 2020).
               After review of the district court’s well-reasoned orders, we
       find no abuse of discretion. Regarding the FDUTPA damages, the
       district court reasoned that Technolojoy was entitled to “actual
       damages,” which it was awarded in the amount of $699,834 for
       breach of contract. Technolojoy, LLC v. BHPH Consulting Servs., LLC,
       No. 19-23770-CIV, 2023 WL 4763228, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2023).
       Allowing Technolojoy to recover for lost opportunities “would be
       contrary to FDUTPA and its progeny and would result in a windfall
       to [Technolojoy].” Id. at *1–2 (quoting Democratic Republic of the
       Congo v. Air Cap. Grp., LLC, 614 F. App’x 460, 474 (11th Cir. 2015)
       (“[A] plaintiff may recover damages on two claims stemming from
       the same conduct if the total does not exceed actual damages.”)).

       2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), we

       adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed
       down before October 1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 23-10874      Document: 71-1     Date Filed: 05/03/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10874

               The district court published a separate order denying Tech-
       nolojoy’s motion to amend the complaint to add FDUTPA claims
       against Fouzailoff and Slutskiy. The district court reiterated that,
       while BHPH Consulting was listed on the Amended Complaint,
       Fouzailoff and Slutskiy were not. Technolojoy, LLC v. BHPH Consult-
       ing Servs., LLC, No. 19-23770-CIV, 2023 WL 4763113, at *1 (S.D. Fla.
       Mar. 3, 2023). At trial, evidence of the violation was presented as
       to BHPH Consulting, and it could not “be said that evidence pro-
       vided fair notice that new claims were entering the case.” Id. Thus,
       Fouzailoff and Slutskiy’s “failure to object, without more, does not
       rise to the level sufficient to find that they gave their implied con-
       sent to try the claims.” Id. The district did not abuse its discretion
       in its rulings, and we therefore affirm.
             AFFIRMED.