Sucsova Investments, Inc. v. Magnolia Holdings of Celebration, LLC

Case: 12-11554 Date Filed: 06/19/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-11554
_____________
D. C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-00085-JA-KRS
SUCSOVA INVESTMENTS, INC.,
a Panamanian Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAGNOLIA HOLDINGS OF CELEBRATION, LLC,
VENANCIO TORRE, a citizen of Florida,
ANDREW LA ROSA, a citizen of Florida,
Defendants-Appellant.
______________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
______________
(June 19, 2013)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, JORDAN and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-11554 Date Filed: 06/19/2013 Page: 2 of 3
This case arose out of a real estate venture gone bad. Plaintiff-Appellee
Sucsova Investments, Inc. (“Sucsova”) brought this action as the alleged holder of
a promissory note (the “Note”) executed by Defendant-Appellant Magnolia
Holdings of Celebration, LLC (“Magnolia”) and guaranteed by Defendants-
Individual Appellants Venancio Torre (“Torre”) and Andrew La Rosa (“La Rosa”).
After a bench trial, the district court found that Sucsova was entitled to the full
amount of the valid Note, plus interest. Appellants argue that the Note was
replaced by a joint venture agreement, wherein the parties agreed Sucsova would
become an equity partner, and that, accordingly, no money is owed under the Note.
The issues presented on appeal are
(1) Whether the district court clearly erred in its findings of fact and
erred in its conclusions of law when it found that the parties had not
entered into a joint venture agreement, that Sucsova was not a
member of Magnolia, and thus, that the parties are completely diverse
for subject matter jurisdiction?
(2) Whether the district court erred in admitting the faxed copy of the
Note into evidence as a negotiable instrument because there was no
delivery of the Note and because Sucsova did not file the original
Note with the court?
“Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2001). “Factual findings
regarding the citizenship of a party are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of
2
Case: 12-11554 Date Filed: 06/19/2013 Page: 3 of 3
review.” Ambrosia Coal & Constr. Co. v. Pages Morales, 482 F.3d 1309, 1313
(11th Cir. 2007).
After a bench trial, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error. Crystal Entm’t & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado, 643 F.3d 1313, 1319 (11th Cir.
2011). “Under the clear error standard, we may reverse the district court’s findings
of fact if, after viewing all the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 1319–20 (internal quotation
marks omitted). “We review conclusions of law made by a district judge following
a bench trial de novo.” Renteria-Marin v. Ag-Mart Produce, Inc., 537 F.3d 1321,
1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit
of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of Sucsova. We
also conclude that the district court did not err in finding that all of the members of
Magnolia were Florida citizens, that the parties had not entered into a joint venture
agreement, and that Sucsova was not a member of Magnolia, therefore establishing
complete diversity of citizenship.
AFFIRMED.
3