Court Opinion

ID: 9400611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 17:04:03.094538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:46.811580
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10874   Document: 27-1    Date Filed: 06/08/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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,
       SEAN FOUZAILOFF,
       ANATOLIY SLUTSKIY,

                            Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 23-10874      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 06/08/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10874

                            ____________________

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

       Before JILL PRYOR and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the
       jurisdictional questions, Appellant Technolojoy, LLC’s motion to
       amend its complaint is GRANTED. We deem the complaint
       amended to reflect that Technolojoy is a citizen of Florida and Ap-
       pellee BHPH Consulting Services, LLC is a citizen of Georgia and
       Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. While Appellees appear to object to
       any amendment of the non-jurisdictional allegations, we note that
       the only substantive changes made in Technolojoy’s second
       amended complaint are to the allegations regarding citizenship.
       We are granting its motion only to that extent.
               The amended jurisdictional allegations now establish that
       the parties were diverse and that the district court had subject mat-
       ter jurisdiction over this action in the first instance. See 28 U.S.C.
       § 1332(a)(1) (providing that federal courts have subject matter ju-
       risdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states,
       where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000); Mallory & Ev-
       ans Contractors & Eng’rs, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ., 663 F.3d 1304, 1305
       (11th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a limited liability company is a
USCA11 Case: 23-10874      Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-10874               Opinion of the Court                          3

       citizen of any state of which one of its members is a citizen); Trav-
       aglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining
       that the pleadings must allege a natural person’s citizenship); Lin-
       coln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005) (explaining that for
       subject matter jurisdiction to exist under § 1332, there must be
       complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all de-
       fendants). This appeal may therefore proceed.
              Technolojoy is DIRECTED to file in the district court a no-
       tice of this opinion and the second amended complaint reflecting
       the amended jurisdictional allegations.