Technolojoy, LLC v. BHPH Consulting Services, LLC, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 4

-- 1 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, J ORDAN, and L AGOA , 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 awards1 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: 2 of 4

-- 2 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: 3 of 4

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

-- 4 of 4 --