FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T DEC 15, 2008

THOMAS K. KAH

N
CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 7

- 1 5 7 9 3

N o n

- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 7

- 0 0 7 2 4

- C V

- J

- 3 2 M C R

A L I C I A W H I T E H U R S T

, D A R R Y L M

. W H I T E H U R S T

,

P l a i n t i f f s

- A p p e l l a n t s ,

D A R R Y L M

. W H I T E H U R S T

, J R

, s o n ,

P l a i n t i f f

,

v e r s u s

W A L

- M A R T

, S t o r e N o : # 1 0 8 3

, D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l e e

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( D e c e m b e r 1 5
, 2 0 0 8 )

B e f o r e B L A C K

, B A R K E T T a n d M A R C U S

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M :D a r r y l a n d A l i c i a W h i t e h u r s t ( “ t h e W h i t e h u r s t s , ” “ t h e p l a i n t i f f s ” )

,

p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , a p p e a l f r o m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e i r m o t i o n t o

r e m a n d a n d g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t W a l

- M a r t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e i r f r a u d a n d

n e g l i g e n c e s u i t p u r s u a n t t o F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )

. O n a p p e a l

, 1

t h e y a r g u e t h a t ( 1 ) r e m o v a l o f t h e s u i t i s b a r r e d b y t h e V i o l e n c e A g a i n s t W o m e n

A c t a n d b y W a l

- M a r t ’ s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h c e r t a i n p r o c e d u r a l

r e q u i r e m e n t s ; a n d ( 2 ) t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d t h e i r c o m p l a i n t

o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t

, a s p r o s e p l a i n t i f f s , t h e y c o u l d n o t b r i n g c l a i m s o n b e h a l f o f

t h e i r s o n a n d t h a t t h e c l a i m s b r o u g h t o n t h e i r o w n b e h a l f w e r e i n a d e q u a t e l y p l e d

.

A f t e r t h o r o u g h r e v i e w , w e a f f i r m

.

W e r e v i e w d e n o v o b o t h t h e d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o r e m a n d

, H e n d e r s o n v

.

W a s h i n g t o n N a t ’ l I n s

. C o

. , 4 5 4 F

. 3 d 1 2 7 8

, 1 2 8 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 6 )

, a n d t h e g r a n t o f

a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s u n d e r R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )

, G l o v e r v

. L i g g e t t G r o u p , I n c

. , 4 5 9 F

. 3 d

1 3 0 4

, 1 3 0 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 6 )

. 2

The complaint alleg es eig ht claims: Counts 1 and 2 alleg e “Gr oss Neg lige nt of [si c] Fr aud 1 by Dec eption,” and essentially acc use Wal-Mart of fra udulently misrepre senting that the store was safe when in fac t Wal-Mart “hire s unprofe ssional people with a criminal history .” Counts 3-6 alleg e various forms of “g ross neg lige nce,” including neg lige nt hiring of secur ity g uards, failing to aler t

customers that Wal-Mart employ ees might be dang erous, and n eglig ent provision of secur ity
service s. Count 7 cry

ptically alleg es neg lige nce in connec tion with “B rea ch of the Peace ,” and

Count 8 alleg es t amper ing with evidenc e (i.e., the surveillanc e video of the incident g iving rise to the suit).

Pro se pleading s are held to a less stringe nt standard than p l ea d i n gs d rafted by attorney s

2

and are there fore liberally construed. See, e.g ., Tanne nbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).

2W e f i r s t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n d e n y i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s ’

m o t i o n t o r e m a n d

. T h e s u i t w a s p r o p e r l y r e m o v e d p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 4 4 1

b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s a r e d i v e r s e ( t h e W h i t e h u r s t s a r e F l o r i d a c i t i z e n s , W a l

- M a r t i s

i n c o r p o r a t e d i n D e l a w a r e a n d m a i n t a i n s i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s i n

A r k a n s a s )

, a n d t h e a m o u n t i n c o n t r o v e r s y ( $ 5 0 m i l l i o n ) e x c e e d s $ 7 5

, 0 0 0

. T h e

3

W h i t e h u r s t s c o n t e n d t h a t r e m o v a l w a s b a r r e d b y 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 4 4 5 ( d )

, w h i c h

f o r b i d s r e m o v a l t o f

e d e r a l c o u r t o f a n y “ c i v i l a c t i o n i n a n y S t a t e c o u r t a r i s i n g

u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 0 3 0 2 o f t h e V i o l e n c e A g a i n s t W o m e n A c t [ V A M A ] o f 1 9 9 4

. ”

H o w e v e r , t h e W h i t e h u r s t s ’ c o m p l a i n t m a k e s a b s o l u t e l y n o m e n t i o n o f t h e V A W A

,

a n d i n a n y e v e n t

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t d e c l a r e d s e c t i o n 4 0 3 0 2 u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n

U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. M o r r i s o n , 5 2 9 U

. S

. 5 9 8

, 6 2 7

, 1 2 0 S

. C t

. 1 7 4 0

, 1 7 5 9 ( 2 0 0 0 )

. T h e

W h i t e h u r s t s m i s t a k e n l y c o m p l a i n t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r f a i l s t o c i t e a n y c a s e

l a w s h o w i n g t h a t t h e V A W A h a s b e e n d e c l a r e d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l : t h e o r d e r c i t e s

M o r r i s o n

.

The complaint identifies “Wal-Mart Superc enter Store No. 1083” a s the defe ndant i n the 3

suit. Since S t o re 1 0 83 is located in Florida

, and since the Whit ehursts are Florida citizens, the
Whit ehursts arg ued that diversity was lacking and that remova l was improper. I n response , WalMart submitt ed the aff

idavit of Eliz abeth Crawf ord, a subsidiary administrator for Wal-Mart, I nc., who stated that Store No. 1083 was mere ly a building and had never opera ted as an independe nt leg al entity under Florida law. I n addition, she stated that Wal-Mart Stores East, L .P., was org anized
and incorpora

ted under the laws of Delaw are , maintained its principal place of business in Arka nsas, and at all rele vant times opera ted and maintained Store No. 1083 in Florida

. As a result, the district

court corr ectly conclude d that Wal-Mart Stores East, L .P. was the proper defe ndant in the case , and that diversity

jurisdiction was prese nt.

3T h e W h i t e h u r s t s ’ a d d i t i o n a l a r g u m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g r e m o v a l a r e l i k e w i s e

w i t h o u t m e r i t

. T h e y c l a i m t h a t W a l

- M a r t p r e s e n t e d n o e v i d e n c e t h a t i t h a d b e e n

s e r v e d w i t h t h e c o m p l a i n t a t t h e t i m e i t f i l e d i t s n o t i c e o f r e m o v a l

. B u t n o t h i n g i n

t h e r e m o v a l s t a t u t e , o r a n y o t h e r l e g a l p r o v i s i o n , r e q u i r e s t h a t a d e f e n d a n t b e

s e r v e d w i t h t h e c o m p l a i n t b e f o r e f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f r e m o v a l

. S e e , e

. g

. , D e l g a d o v

.

S h e l l O i l C o

. , 2 3 1 F

. 3 d 1 6 5

, 1 7 7 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 0 ) ; C i t y o f A n n A r b o r E m p l o y e e s ’

R e t i r e m e n t S y s t e m v

. G e c h t

, N o

. C

- 0 6

- 7 4 5 3

, 2 0 0 7 W L 7 6 0 5 6 8

, a t * 9 ( N

. D

. C a l

.

M a r

. 9

, 2 0 0 7 ) ( c o l l e c t i n g c a s e s )

. T h e p l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r a r g u e t h a t W a l

- M a r t f a i l e d

t o f i l e a s e p a r a t e n o t i c e o f a p p e a r a n c e w h e n i t f i l e d i t s n o t i c e o f r e m o v a l

. A g a i n ,

h o w e v e r , n e i t h e r t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e n o r t h e L o c a l R u l e s f o r t h e

M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a r e q u i r e s a s e p a r a t e a p p e a r a n c e f o r m w h e n f

i l i n g a n o t i c e

o f r e m o v a l

.

W e a l s o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o m m i t t e d n o e r r o r i n g r a n t i n g W a l

M a r t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

. T h e W h i t e h u r s t s ’ c o m p l a i n t p u r p o r t s t o a s s e r t c l a i m s f o r

f r a u d a n d f

o r n e g l i g e n c e , o n b e h a l f o f t h e m s e l v e s a s w e l l a s t h e i r s o n

. A s a n i n i t i a l 4

Prior to the instant suit, M r. Whitehurst filed a pro se complaint ag ainst Wal-Mart Stores 4
East, L .P. in Fl o ri d a s t at e court seeking $1 milli on in damag es. The suit raised substantially the

same neg lige nce and fra

ud claims as are alleg ed here

, but wer e broug ht by Mr. Whit ehurst on behalf
of his wife, Alicia, and their son, Dar ry l, J r. Wal-Mart remove d the case to the district court, which subsequently dismiss ed the case based on the finding s that Whit ehurst, as a pro se litigant, could not

prosec ute claims on behalf of others; that he had not alleg ed that he suffe red any injuries persona lly ; and that he had not pleade d his fra ud claim with particula

rity

. Whit ehurst v. Wal-Mart Stores East,

L .P., No. 3:06-cv-191- J -32MCR, 2007 WL 2071433 (M.D. Fla. J uly 13, 2007). Howeve r, the court
observe d that the di smissal “would not nece ssarily preve nt [ Dar ry l’s] wife, son, or gra

nddaug hter

4m a t t e r , a n y c l a i m a s s e r t e d o n t h e s o n ’ s b e h a l f n e c e s s a r i l y f a i l s : w h i l e i n d i v i d u a l s

h a v e t h e r i g h t t o p r o c e e d p r o s e , 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 5 4 ( “ I n a l l c o u r t s o f t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s t h e p a r t i e s m a y p l e a d a n d c o n d u c t t h e i r o w n c a s e s p e r s o n a l l y o r b y c o u n s e l

a s , b y t h e r u l e s o f s u c h c o u r t s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , a r e p e r m i t t e d t o m a n a g e a n d c o n d u c t

c a u s e s t h e r e i n

. ” )

, a n d F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 1 7 a u t h o r i z e s a c o n s e r v a t o r

o r g u a r d i a n t o s u e o n b e h a l f o f a m i n o r c h i l d

, F e d

. R

. C i v

. P

. 1 7 ( c )

, a n o n

- l a w y e r

p a r e n t h a s n o r i g h t t o r e p r e s e n t a c h i l d i n a n a c t i o n i n t h e c h i l d ’ s n a m e

. S e e , e

. g

. ,

D e v i n e v

. I n d i a n R i v e r C o u n t y S c h o o l B d

. , 1 2 1 F

. 3 d 5 7 6

, 5 8 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 7 )

( h o l d i n g “ t h a t n e i t h e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 5 4 n o r F e d

. R

. C i v

. P 1 7 ( c )

. . . p e r m i t s a

p a r e n t t o r e p r e s e n t h i s / h e r c h i l d i n f e d e r a l c o u r t

. ” ) ; C h e u n g v

. Y o u t h O r c h e s t r a

F o u n d a t i o n o f B u f

f a l o , I n c

. , 9 0 6 F

. 2 d 5 9

, 6 1 ( 2 d C i r

. 1 9 9 0 ) ( n o n

- a t t o r n e y p a r e n t

m u s t b e r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l i n b r i n g i n g a n a c t i o n o n b e h a l f o f h i s o r h e r c h i l d ) ;

M e e k e r v

. K e r c h e r , 7 8 2 F

. 2 d 1 5 3

, 1 5 4 ( 1 0 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 6 ) ( “ W e h o l d t h a t u n d e r F e d

.

R

. C i v

. P

. 1 7 ( c ) a n d 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 5 4

, a m i n o r c h i l d c a n n o t b r i n g s u i t t h r o u g h a

p a r e n t a c t i n g a s n e x t f

r i e n d i f t h e p a r e n t i s n o t r e p r e s e n t e d b y a n a t t o r n e y

. ” )

.

from bring ing an action in their own names.” I d. at *2 n.4. Although difficult to discern from their briefing , the Whitehursts appare ntly believe tha t they

have r emedied this diffic ulty by desig nating
themselves as “advoc ates” of their son. Despite the cha n g e in terminolog y , howeve r, the son’s
claims have still been broug ht by his pare nts and conseque ntly

, as discussed below, rema in barr ed.
The same is true for any claims the Whit ehursts purport to asser t as “advoc ates” of their

g randda ug hter. Since Alicia Whit ehurst now asser ts claims on her own behalf

, those claims are no longe r subject to the same defe ct. Nonethele ss, as explained below, her claims fail for other rea sons.

5T h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d b y M r

. a n d M r s

. W h i t e h u r s t o n t h e i r o w n b e h a l f a l s o

w e r e p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d

. T h e f r a u d c l a i m s w e r e n o t p l e d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y , a s

r e q u i r e d b y F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 9 ( b )

, N e x t C e n t u r y C o m m u n i c a t i o n s

C o r p

. v

. E l l i s , 3 1 8 F

. 3 d 1 0 2 3

, 1 0 2 7

- 2 8 n

. 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a

p l a i n t i f f m u s t s a t i s f

y R u l e 9 ( b ) ’ s p l e a d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s i n d i v e r s i t y f r a u d a c t i o n )

,

a s w e l l a s F l o r i d a l a w , s e e , e

. g

. , T h o m p s o n v

. B a n k o f N e w Y o r k

, 8 6 2 S o

. 2 d 7 6 8

,

7 7 0 ( F l a

. 4 t h D i s t

. C t

. A p p

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( c o l l e c t i n g c a s e s )

. M o r e o v e r , w i t h r e s p e c t t o 5

t h e i r n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m s , n e i t h e r o f t h e W h i t e h u r s t s i s a l l e g e d t o h a v e s u f f e r e d a

c o g n i z a b l e i n

j u r y

. A l i c i a W h i t e h u r s t i s a l l e g e d t o h a v e b e e n “ t r a u m a t i z e d ” b y t h e

i n c i d e n t

, b u t t h e c o m p l a i n t d o e s n o t a l l e g e t h a t s h e s u f f e r e d a n y p h y s i c a l i n

j u r y ,

w h i c h i s r e q u i r e d u n d e r F l o r i d a l a w

. S e e , e

. g

. , S o u t h e r n B a p t i s t H o s p

. o f F l a

. , I n c

. ,

I n their first suit, the W hitehursts proved unable t o reme dy the complaint’s defec ts, even 5 though they wer e g iven three separ ate opportunities to amend. Whit ehurst v. Wal-Mart Stores East,

L .P., No. 3:06-cv-191- J -32MCR, 2007 WL 2071433, at *2 (M.D. Fla. J uly 13, 2007). I ndeed, the plaintiffs failed to cra ft a viable complaint with the assistance of pro bono counsel appointed by the district court. (The appointed attorney later w ithdrew due to conflicts with Mr. Whitehurst). We
there fore ag ree with the district court that any further opportunity to amend the com plaint in the

prese nt suit would be futile. See, e.g ., Palacio v. City of New Yo rk

, 4 8 9 F. S upp. 2d 335, 343 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (pro se plaintiff who had alre ady been g iven two chanc es to amend his complaint

was not entitled to a third o p p o rt u n ity ); see also Robles v. Ble au, No. 9:07-CV-0464, 2008 WL 4693153, at *6 (N.D.N .Y. Oct. 22, 2008) (“[G]ranting a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend is

not require d wh er e t h e plaintiff has alre ady been g iven a chanc e to amend his pleading .”); cf.
Vande rber g v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2001) (distri ct court did not abuse its
discreti on in deny ing leave to amend complaint beca use pro se plaintiff failed to alleg e new fac ts
from which the district court could have conclude d that he might have been able to state a succe ssful claim).

6v

. W e l k e r , 9 0 8 S o

. 2 d 3 1 7

, 3 2 0 ( F l a

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ [ B ] e f o r e a p l a i n t i f

f c a n r e c o v e r

d a m a g e s f

o r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s c a u s e d b y t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f a n o t h e r , t h e e m o t i o n a l

d i s t r e s s s u f

f e r e d m u s t f

l o w f r o m p h y s i c a l i n

j u r i e s t h e p l a i n t i f

f s u s t a i n e d i n a n

i m p a c t

. ” ) ( c i t a t i o n s a n d q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. D a r r y l W h i t e h u r s t i s n o t e v e n a l l e g e d

t o h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n c i d e n t

, l e t a l o n e t o h a v e s u f f e r e d a n y

i n j u r y a s a r e s u l t o f i t

. S e e K a y f e t z v

. A

. M

. B e s t R o o f

i n g , I n c

. , 8 3 2 S o

. 2 d 7 8 4

, 7 8 6

( F l a

. 3 d D i s t

. C t

. A p p

. 2 0 0 2 ) ( “ U n d e r F l o r i d a l a w , t o r e c o v e r o n h i s n e g l i g e n c e

c l a i m , P l a i n t i f

f

. . . n e e d e d t o p r o v e t h a t ( 1 ) D e f e n d a n t o w e d h i m a l e g a l d u t y ; ( 2 )

D e f e n d a n t b r e a c h e d t h a t d u t y ; ( 3 ) h e s u f f e r e d i n j u r y a s a r e s u l t o f t h a t b r e a c h ; a n d

( 4 ) t h e i n j u r y c a u s e d d a m a g e

. ” )

.

B e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o m m i t t e d n o e r r o r i n d e n y i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s ’

m o t i o n t o r e m a n d a n d i n g r a n t i n g W a l

- M a r t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , i t s o r d e r i s

a f f i r m e d

.

A F F I R M E D

.

7