[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 13 45 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cv -0 10 15 -ACC- DAB ROBERT E. DAW LEY, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us NF ENERGY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, GANG LI, CEO, DON A. H ERNANDEZ, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 1 2, 2 01 2)
Befo re HULL, EDMONDSON, an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-13455 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 1 of 8Ro be rt Da wley, pro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l --

fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m for rel ie f, pu rs ua ntto Fed .R.Ci v.P . 12 (b )(6 ) -- o f hi s di ve rs it y act io n. Th e act io n was bro ug htpu rs uantto 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2, ag ai ns t NF Ene rg y Sav in g C or

po rat io n o f Am eri ca (“NF Ener gy”); Gan g Li , NF Energ y ’s Ch ie f Exe cu ti ve Offic er (“ CEO”); an d Do n A. Hern an de z, NF Ene rg y ’s cou ns el (co ll ect iv el y

“ de fen da nt s” ). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af firm . 1 Dawle y fil edanin it ia l co m

pl ai ntag ai ns t d efen da nt s al le gi ng ten co un ts of frau d, fr au d p ert ai ni ng to a se rie s o f tr an sa ct io ns he en te redin to wit h NF En erg y . The fir stfou r co un ts refe ren ceda se rie s o f fo urco nt ract s b etween Dawley andNF Ene rg y on hi s p ur ch as e o f “ ren ewab le co nv ert ib le no te s” th atco ul d b e co nv ert ed to st oc k. Th e fi fth an d s ix th co un ts in Dawley’ s co m pl ai ntcit edto de fen da nt s’ al le ge d m is rep res en ta ti on s dur in g a n e arl ie r tr ia l an d l at er ap pe al ab ou t b reac h- of

co nt ractcla im s i n Dawl ey v. NF En erg y

Sav in g C or

p. o f Am . et al ., 37 4 F ed
. App ’x 92 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (un publ is he d) (“ Dawle y I”). His rem ai ni ng fou r
co un ts all eg edth at , on fou r se pa rat e o ccas io ns be twee n M arch 20 07 an d J un e

We revie w de novo th e d i s t ri ct court’s g rant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)( 6) for 1 failure to s t at e a claim. Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir. 2010). In d o i ng so, we take the fac tual alleg ations as true and construed in a light most favor able to the plaintiff. I d. 2

Case: 11-13455 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 2 of 820 10 , reque st s h e se ntto Hern an de z th atNF Ener gy ho no r hi s co nt ract s wer e

ig no red
. The di stric t co urt d is m is se d Dawl ey ’s firs t s ix cla im s as ba rredby res jud ic at a. Inad di ti on , th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t co un ts fiv e an d s ix inDawley’ s
co m pl ai ntwere b arre d b y

Flo rid a’s li ti ga ti on pri vi le ge . The d is tri ctco urt di sm is se d, wi th ou t p reju di ce, Dawl ey ’s fou r rem ai ni ng frau d c la im s b ecau se th ey ha d n otbe enpl ead edwit h t he requi si te pa rti cu la rit y , pu rs uantto Fed .R.Ci v.P
. 9( b) ; an d t he co urt g ran te d h im lea ve to am en d tho se co un ts . Dawley then fil edan
am en de d c om

pl ai ntwit h m in orch an ge s t o t he fou r cl ai m s, b utde fen da nt s m ov ed to di sm is s t he co m

pl ai ntun de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m ba se d o n Dawle y ’s fai lu re t o p le adfrau d wi th pa rti cu la rity . The d is tri ctco urt t he n di sm is se d Dawl ey ’s am en de d c om pl ai nt
. On ap pe al , Dawley doe s n otsp eci fic al ly argu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin di sm is si ng hi s fi rs t s ix frau d c la im s as ba rredby res jud ic at a, bu t i ns te adass ert s th atDawley I sh ou ldbe rev ers edbe cau se itvi ol at edth e in te ntof t he co ntract in g pa rti es an d fa il edto co nf orm to th e Fl or id a p aro l ev id en ce ru le . To th e ex te ntth at Dawle y arg ue s tha t we s ho ul d re vi si t an d re co ns id er o urrul in gs in Dawley I, his pr es en t n ot ic e o f ap pe al -- fi le d i n J ul y 20 11 , m or e th ana y ear a fte r th e Dawle y

3 Case: 11-13455 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 3 of 8ru li ng s i n Ap ril an d M ay 20 10 -- is un ti m el y ; we l ackjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er 2 th es e is su es . See Fed .R.App .P. 4(a )(1 )(A) (re qu iri ng th atno ti ces of app eal m us t be fil edwit hi n 3 0 d ay s af te r en try of jud gm en t); Rin al do v. Co rb et t, 2 56 F.3d 12 76 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (n ot in g t ha t the ti m el y fil in g o f a n ot ic e o f ap pe al is
m an da to ry

an d ju ris di ct io na l). Dawl ey see ks ap pe ll at e rev ie w of t he m eri ts of h is frau d c la im s, d es pi te th e res jud ic at a fi nd in g. 3 A lat er ac ti onis ba rredby res jud ic at a if (1) th ere i s a p rio r fi na l ju dg m en t
on th e m eri ts , (2) th e p rio r de ci si on was re nd eredby a cou rt o f co m pe te nt juri sd ic ti on , (3) th e p art ie s ar e id en ti cal in bo th su it s, an d (4 ) th e sa m e cau se of act io n i s i nv ol ve d i n b ot h c as es . Shu ric k v . Boe in g C o., 6 23 F.3d11 14 , 11 16 -1 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . After r ev ie w, we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o
rev ers ib le erro r in de te rm in in g t ha t Dawl ey ’s firs t s ix cla im s wer e b arre d b y res jud ic at a.

Dawle y first brought suit ag ains t NF E n er gy an d L i in May 2007, alleg ing that they had 2 brea ched four separ ate contra cts that Dawle y had enter ed into wi th NF Energy ’s prede cessor co mp an y , Global Broadca st Group, Inc. In April 2010, following an appea l by NF Energy , we reve rsed the district co u rt ’s award of $400,000 to Dawle y afte r the court ref ormed a lifetime consulting agree ment into a contra ct for inter est. In May 2010, we de nied Daw ley ’s petition for a rehe aring ; and the district cour t denied his motion for a re trial. We liberally construe pro se pleading s. Tanne nbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 3 (11th Cir. 1998). 4

Case: 11-13455 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 4 of 8The di stric t co urt’s ru li ng in Dawley I was fi na l an d o n the m eri ts
.

Dawle y ’s firs t fo urcla im s s te m fro m th e sa m e fac tu al pre di cat e as Dawley I: (1 ) hi s o wne rs hi p o f 90 0,0 00 sh ares of NF En erg y ; (2 ) th e n ot es -to -s to ckco nv ers io n in Marc h 2 00 6; an d (3 ) th e sa le of t he co m pa ny to Li de sp it e Li’s l ackof kn owl ed ge of Da wley’ s ex is ti ng co nt ract s, an d Li ’s lat er re fu sa l t o h on or Dawle y ’s con tra ct s. See Rag sd al e v . Rub be rm ai d, In c., 19 3 F .3d12 35 , 12 39 (11 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) (st at in g t ha t two ca se s ar e co ns id eredto in vo lv e th e
sa m e cl ai m

or c au se of a ct io n i f th e la tt er ca se “ ari se s o utof t he same nu cl eu s o f op erat iv e fac t, o r is ba se d upo n t he same factu al pre di cat e” as th e fo rm er ca se ). Dawle y ’s si xt h c la im

ab ou t NF En erg y ’s app eal in Dawley I, in wh ic h Dawl ey al le ge d t ha t t he de fen da nt s kne w or s ho ul d h av e kno wn t ha t t he ir app eal “ vi ol at ed th e co nt ractterm s” an d c on st itut edin te nt io na l fr au d, al so ari se s o utof t he same br each of aco nt ractat i ss ue in Dawley I; itpro pe rly was b arre d b y res jud ic at a. 4 Here, Dawl ey

is att em pt in g t o s ue th e d efen da nt s u si ng di ffer en t l ab el s,
ev enth ou gh th e in st an t fr au d c as e in vo lv es th e sa m e cau se of a ct io n a s h is earl ie r br each -o f-co nt ractsu it . Becau se th e frau d c la im s al read y ex is te d wh enth e

He rn an d ez wa s no party to Dawle y I , and, thus, res judicata does not bar Dawle y ’s fifth and 4 six th claims, as they relate to Her nandez. There is nothing to sug g est that Her nandez was in privity with either L i or NF Energy . See Ha rt v. Yama

ha-Par ts Distribs., Inc., 787 F .2d 1468, 1472 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting that res judicata also applies to those persons in privity wi th t he parties in the earlier ac tion). 5

Case: 11-13455 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 5 of 8or ig in al co m pl ai ntwas fi le d i n t he fir stcas e an d aro se fro m th e sa m e co ntract s, th ey sh ou ldha ve be enrai se d t he re. See Trus tm arkIns . Co. v . ESLU, Inc., 2 99 F.3 d 1 26 5, 1 27 0 n .3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (st at in g t ha t b ecau se th e sa m e co nt ractwas th e fo un da ti on of t he factua l p red ic at e in bo th cas es , “ as lo ng as t he rel ev an t cl ai m s h adoc cu rredpri orto fil in g t he fir stlaws ui t, [p la in ti ff] sh ou ldha ve bro ug ht th e n eg li ge ntm is rep res en ta ti onan d fr au d c la im s atth atti m e”). Nex t, t he di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly con cl ud edth atDawley’ s fi fth an d s ix th cl ai m s wer e b arre d b y

th e Fl or id a li ti ga ti on pri vi le ge . Und er Fl or id a la w, an y act 5
oc cu rri ng du rin g t he co ur se of ajud ic ia l p ro ceed in g i s en ti tl edto ab so lu te imm un it y as l on g a s t he actha d s om e rel at io n t o t he pro ceed in g. Gree n Lea f Nur se ry v. E.I. DuP on t De Nem ou rs & Co ., 34 1 F .3d12 92 , 13 02 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Fl or id a co urts ha ve ex te nd edth is imm un it y to co un se l. See Levi n, M id dl eb ro ok s, Mab ie , Tho m as , Mayes & Mi tc he ll , P.A. v. Uni te d S ta te s Fi re In s. Co ., 63 9 S o.2 d 60 6, 6 08 (Fl a. 19 94 ) (s ta ti ng th atth is imm un it y ex te nd s n oton ly to p art ie s i n a pr oc eed in g b utto jud ge s, wi tn es se s, an d c ou ns el as we ll ). Becaus e Dawle y ’s fift h
an d s ix th ch arg es co nc ern edth e d efen da nt s’ all eg edom is si on s dur in g t he Dawley I tr ia l an d Herna nd ez’s al le ge d fr au d i n app eal in g Dawl ey I, th e ch arg es in vo lv ed

“F eder al courts s i t t i n g i n d i versity apply the substantive law of the state in which the case 5 arose .” P en d er gas t v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 592 F.3d 1119, 1132-33 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 6

Case: 11-13455 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 6 of 8th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs ; an d t he di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d the se cla im s as

ba rredby Flo rid a’s li ti ga ti on pri vi le ge . Dawle y do es no t s pe ci fic al ly argu e o n app eal th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby di sm is si ng th e fo urcla im s i n h is am en de d c om pl ai ntwit h p reju di ce fo r fai lu re t o pl eadfrau d wi th pa rti cu larit y . Neve rth el es s, h e m ai nt ai ns th atth e d efen da nt s’ 6 act s co ns ti tu te in te nt io na l fr au d b ecau se th ey fai le d t o fo ll ow t he ir o wn co nt ract s, hi d t he in te ntof t he co nt ract in g p art ie s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt, an d c on ve rte d h is
no te s i nt o s to ckwit ho utpro pe r au th or it y . Whe n a ll eg in g fr au d, a p la in ti ff “ m us t s ta te wit h p art ic ul ari ty the ci rcu m st an ces co ns ti tu ti ng frau d o r m is ta ke .” Am . Dent al Ass ’n, 60 5 F .3dat 1 28 8 (quo ti ng Fed .R.Ci v.P . 9(b )). Und er Ru le 9(b ), a p la in ti ff m us t al le ge (1) th e pr eci se st at em en t o r m is rep res en ta ti on m ad e; (2) th e ti m e, pl ace, a ndpe rs on
res po ns ib le forth e st at em en t; (3) th e co nt en t an d m an ne r inwhi chth e st at em en t
m is le d t he pl ai nt iff

; an d (4 ) wha t t he de fen da nt s g ai ne d fr om th e al le ge d fr au d. Id
. (ci ta ti on om it te d)
.

Dawle y ’s n o t i ce of appea l stated that he was appea ling his “seve n claims dismiss ed with 6 prejudice ” in his orig inal complaint. Be cause both parties briefed all ten of the fraud charg es and the defe ndants specific ally briefe d the four charg es of fra ud raised in Dawle y ’s amende d complaint, we will consider these claims. See KH Outdoor, L L C v. City of Trussville, 465 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2 0 06) (citation omitted) (conc luding that a party had appea led a judgme nt that was not expli citly prese nted in the notice of appea l wher e both sides briefe d the issue and the opposing party would not be pre

judiced). 7 Case: 11-13455 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 7 of 8Dawle y ’s am en de d c om pl ai nt-- co pi edalm os t wo rd -fo r-wo rdfro m hi s in it ia l co m

pl ai nt-- al le ge d o nl y

th athe m ad e m

ul ti pl e u ns uc ces sf

ul reque st s t o Hern an de z to ho no r hi s ex is ti ng co ntract s. Yet , he d oe s n otsp eci fy wit h the requi si te pa rti cu la rit y

ho w th es e in st an ces of n on -res po ns e co ns ti tu te frau d o r th e
m an ne r in whi chth es e fai lu res to res po ndm is le d h im . Accor di ng ly, Dawle y fai le d t o p le adth e fo urfrau d c la im s i n h is am en de d c om pl ai ntwit h p art ic ul ari ty,
as requi redby Rul e 9 (b ), an d t he di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d t he se cla im s. 7 AFFIR MED.

Dawle y fails to argue on appea l that the district court err ed in dismiss ing his amende d complaint 7 with prejudice instead of providing him wit h an o ther opportunity to amend his complaint; he has abandone d this issue. See N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axi om Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1217 n.4 (11th Cir. 2008) (statingthat “issues not raise d on appea l are abandone d”). 8 Case: 11-13455 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 8 of 8