Dailane Investments Limited v. H.I.G. Capital, LLC

USCA11 Case: 25-14213 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/10/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 25-14213 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

DAILANE INVESTMENTS LIMITED,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus H.I.G. CAPITAL, LLC, SAMI MNAYMNEH,

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-20568-RKA ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

2 Opinion of the Court 25-14213

HIG Capital, LLC (“HIG”) and Sami Mnaymneh interlocu- torily appeal from the district court’s October 27, 2025, order that (1) denied appellants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) found that appellants forfeited the opportunity to brief the issue of whether HIG was an indispensable party; and (3) analyzed HIG’s dispensability, found it dispensable, and dropped it as a party. Appellants unsuccessfully sought certification of the or- der for immediate appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Appellee Dailane Investments Limited moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants respond that we have ju- risdiction under the collateral order doctrine, and that our jurisdic- tion extends only to the district court’s finding that appellants for- feited the opportunity to brief the issue of HIG’s indispensability. Dailane separately moves for sanctions against HIG under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.

Our jurisdiction generally is limited to final decisions of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. An order adjudicating the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken unless the district court properly certifies it as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012).

The collateral order doctrine allows for appeal of a nonfinal order if it conclusively resolves an important issue separate from the merits of the action and is “effectively unreviewable on appeal 25-14213 Opinion of the Court 3 from a final judgment.” Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 989 (11th Cir. 2022); see also Fleming v. United States, 127 F.4th 837, 852 (11th Cir. 2025) (observing that interlocutory appeals under the collateral order doctrine “are not for issues that are merely im- portant; they are for issues that are important, now”). We have “emphasized the narrow, limited, modest and selective scope of the collateral order doctrine.” Fleming, 127 F.4th at 843 (quotation marks omitted and alterations accepted).

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal. The appeal is not taken from a final judgment, and the order was not certified under Rule 54(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Sargeant, 689 F.3d at 1246. Appellants argue that the district court’s forfeiture finding will be effectively unreviewable upon appeal from a final judgment because, if they do not appeal it now, it will become “law of the case.” But we are not bound by a district court’s determina- tion that a party forfeited an issue. See, e.g., ECB USA, Inc. v. Chubb Ins. Co. of N.J., 113 F.4th 1312, 1317-18 (11th Cir. 2024) (“[W]e do not defer to the district court’s conclusion that ECB purportedly waived its New Jersey law arguments when we are assessing waiver for appellate purposes. . . . [W]hether a party has waived an issue for purposes of appeal is a matter that we must assess de novo.”). Further, questions of the district court’s subject matter ju- risdiction “may be raised at any time.” Nicklaw v. Citimortgage, Inc., 839 F.3d 998, 1001 (11th Cir. 2016). The order is thus not “effec- tively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” See Acheron, 22 F.4th at 989. As such, the collateral order doctrine does not ap- ply.

4 Opinion of the Court 25-14213

As to Dailane’s motion for sanctions, Rule 38 provides for sanctions upon a determination that an appeal “is frivolous.” Fed. R. App. P. 38. While appellants’ jurisdictional arguments fail, they do not rise to the level of frivolity. We thus decline to impose sanc- tions.

Accordingly, Dailane’s motion to dismiss this appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Dailane’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.