Allco Finance Limited Inc. v. Trina Solar (U.S.) INC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: January 11, 2024
• Docket: 23-13968
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit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