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

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3

-- 1 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, C IRCUIT J UDGES.
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: 2 of 3

-- 2 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.
USCA11 Case: 23-13968 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --