Allco Finance Limited Inc. v. Trina Solar (U.S.) INC, et al, No. 23-13968 (11th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 23-13968 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2024 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-13968 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ALLCO FINANCE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, Plainti -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 2 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 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 jurisdiction. 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 action. 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 23-13968 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 expressly contemplated further proceedings. Cf. Martinez v. Carnival Corp., 744 F.3d 1240, 1244 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that administratively closing a case is not the same as dismissing a case and nding that order compelling arbitration was immediately appealable where it “[n]otably . . . did not stay the proceedings, nor did it contemplate any further action on this case”). We thus lack jurisdiction to consider the order. No petition for rehearing may be led unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
