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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.
