[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 73 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cv -1 42 39 -DLG LNV CORPORATION, Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r Defen da nt App el le e, ve rs us GEORGE A. MAIB, anin di vi du al , ROBYN E. MAIB, anin di vi du al , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- Co un te r Cl ai m an ts App el lant s, W ILLIAM J . W OODY SR., FAMILY TRUST, etal., Defen da nt s.

Case: 10-13737 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 1 of 8__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 2, 2 01 3) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Geo rg e A. Mai b a ndRo byn E. Mai b, p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal th e d is tri ct co urt’s g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of LNV Corp or at io n (“ LNV”) init s pr iv at e fed eral di ve rs ity

for ecl os ur e act io n a ga in stth e Ma ib s an d t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f th ei r co un te rcl ai m . The d is pu te co nc ern s a l oa n a gr eem en t (“ Agr eem en t” ) th atth e Ma ib s en te redwith Th e Co lu m bi anBan k & Trus t Co m pa ny (“ CBT”) inco nn ect io n wi th a pr om is so ry no te (“Not e”) s ecu redby a m ortg ag e o n re al an d p ers on al pro pe rty (“ Mo rtg ag e”). Itwas u nd is pu te d a t the su m m ary jud gm en t s ta ge th at : (1 ) CBT h addi sb ur se d t he ful l l oa n am ou ntan d ap pr ov edall bu t o ne reque st , (2) th e Ma ib s d efau lt edonth e Agr eem en t b y fai li ng to m ak e it s re qu ire d p aym en ts , and(3) LNV was th e th en -cu rren t h ol de r an d own er o f th e Not e an d M ortg ag e as th e res ul t o f anass ig nm en t b y th e Fed eral Dep os itIns ur an ce Co rp or at io n (F DIC) as rece iv er fo r CBT. On ap pe al , th e Ma ib s ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y di sm is se d the ir 2 Case: 10-13737 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 2 of 8co un te rcl ai m forlac k o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . They as se rt t ha t thi s cl ai m do es no t i nv ol ve th e FDIC s o 1 2 U.S.C. § 18 21 (d ) is in ap pl ic ab le . They al so co nt en d tha t the term s o f th e Agr eem en t s ti pu la te th atall co nf li ct s ar e to be res ol ve d i n F lo rid a. The Mai bs als o a rg ue th atsu m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of LNV was in ap pr op ria te be cau se CBT b reac he d the term s o f th e Agr eem en t i n t wo ways. 1 Fi rs t, b y de nyin g areque stfor$3 7,5 00 ou t o f a t ot al of $ 1.2 mil li on th atwas t o b e us edto pu rch as e co nc ret e m ix in g t ru ck s (“ $3 7,5 00 reque st ”), CBT caus ed si gn ifi can t h arm

to th e Ma ib s’ bu si ne ss , OceanCo nc ret e, In c. (“ Ocean ”), an d ren de redth em

un ab le to m ak e th e lo anpa ym en ts . Seco nd , th e FDIC g ran te d LNV ex ecu ti ve s a l im it edpo wer o f at to rn ey whi chcrea te d aco nf

li ct -o f-i nt eres t tha t l ed to pre jud ic ia l treat m en t o f th e Ma ib s i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e Loa n a ndMo rtg ag e. Fi na ll y , th e Ma ib s ap pe ar t o c on te ndth atLNV’ s s ui t i s b arre d b y th e Roo ker

Feld man do ctrin e.

The Maibs ra ised sever al other a rguments for the f

irst time on appeal a s to why 1 summary judgme nt was inappropriate. A leg al claim or a rgument raised f

or the fir st tim e on appea l that was not prese nted in the district court is dee med waive d and its merits will not be addre ssed. Miller v. King , 449 F.3d 1149, 1150 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 2006). The Maibs also ra ised an argument in district court about priorities in intere st that they do not argue on appe al. A leg al claim or a rgument that has not bee n briefe d befor e the Court is dee med aba ndoned and its merits will not be addre ssed. Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 347 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 1994). Acc ording ly , we do not addre ss any

of these a

rguments. 3 Case: 10-13737 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 3 of 8I.

Sect io n 1 82 1( d) (1 3) (D) p ro vi de s tha t: Exc ep t as othe rwis e p ro vi de d i n t hi s s ub se ct io n, n o c ou rt s ha ll ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er–(I) an y cla im or a ct io n fo r pa ym en t fr om , or any act io n s eek in g ade te rm in at io n o f ri gh ts with re sp ectto , th e as se ts of an y de po si to ry

in st itut io n fo r whi chth e [FDIC ] ha s b eenap po in te d rece iv er, i nc lu di ng ass et s wh ic h t he [FDIC] m ay acqui re fro m

it se lf a s su chrece iv er; or ( ii ) an y

cla im rel at in g t o a ny act o r omiss io n o f su ch in st itut io n o r th e [FDIC ] as rece iv er. 12 U.S.C. § 1 82 1( d) (1 3) (D). Sect io n 1 82 1( d) (6 )(A) s pe ci fie s tha t a c la im an t m ay fil e su itinth e d is tri ctco urt “ withi n wh ic h t he de po si to ry in st itut io n’s p rin ci pa l pl ace o f bu si ne ss is lo cat edor t he Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof Co lu m bi a . . . .” Id
. § 1 28 1( d) (6 )(A)(i i). Th e co ns en t o f th e p art ie s ca nn otwaiv e orco nf er s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha rr is , 14 9 F .3d13 04 , 13 08 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . By th ei r own admis si on , th e Ma ib s’ cou nt ercl ai m is ba se d o n t he same cl ai m s, fa ct s, an d a ll eg eddam ag es as aco m pl ai ntth ey

fil edag ai ns t the FDIC. Bec au se th e Ma ib s’ cou nt ercl ai m is ba se d o n a ll eg edact s o r omiss io ns of t he FDIC i n i ts cap aci ty as rece iv er fo r CBT, the cla im m ay on ly pro ceedinth e Dis tri ctCo urt fo r Kan sa s, CB T’ s p rin ci pa l p la ce o f bu si ne ss , or the Dis tri ctof Co lu m bi a. Se e 12 U.S.C. §§ 18 21 (d )(1 3) (D) an d 1 28 1( d) (6 )(A)(i i). Furth er, the 4 Case: 10-13737 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 4 of 8Agr eem en t was in cap ab le of c on ferr in g s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on on th e d is tri ct co urt. Se e Har ris , 14 9 F .3dat 1 30 8. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly di sm is se d the co un te rcl ai m forlac k o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r § 1 82 1( d) .

II. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to gra ntsu m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g a ll of t he ev id en ce an d i ts reas on ab le in fere nc es inth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty . W ad de ll v. Hend ryCn ty . Sh er if

f’s Off ic e , 32 9 F.3 d 1 30 0, 1 30 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 6( a) s ta te s th atsu m m ary jud gm en t s ha ll be gra nt edif the pl ead in gs an d e vi de nc e sh ow tha t th ere i s “ no ge nu in e d is pu te as t o a ny m at eri al factan d the m ov an t i s en ti tl edto a jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (a). “ Pro se pl ead in gs are h el d t o a le ss strin ge ntst an da rdth anpl ead in gs dra fte d b y att orne y s an d wi ll , th eref or e, be li be ral ly con st ru ed .” Ta nn en ba um v. Un it ed Stat es , 14 8 F .3d12 62 , 12 63 (11 th Ci r. 19 98 ). Und er Fl or id a la w, an as si gn ee i s g en eral ly sub ject t o a ll th e equi ti es an d de fen se s o f th e d eb to r co nn ect edwith o r gr owi ng ou t o f th e o bl ig at io n t ha t the ob li go r ha d a ga in stth e as si gn orat t he ti m e o f anass ig nm en t. La w Off ic e o f Da vi d J. St ern, P.A. v. Sec . Nat ’l Servi ci ng Co rp . , 96 9 S o. 2 d 9 62 , 96 8 (F la . 20 07 ). Fora br each of c on tra ctcla im

un de r Fl or id a la w, th e n on -b reac hi ng pa rty m us t p le ad 5 Case: 10-13737 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 5 of 8an d e st ab li sh th e ex is te nc e o f a co nt ract , a m at eri al bre ach of t he co nt ract , and

da m ag es res ul ti ng fro m

th e b reac h. Vega v . T-Mo bi le USA, In c. , 56 4 F .3d12 56 , 12 72 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). A m at eri al bre ach of c on tra ctall ows th e n on -b reac hi ng pa rty to t reatth e b reac h a s a d is ch arg e o f hi s co nt ractua l l iabi li ty. Hos pi ta l Mo rt . Gro up v. Fir

st Pru de nt ia l Dev . Cor

p. , 41 1 S o. 2 d 1 81 , 18 2 (F la . 19 82 ). The Mai bs ’ arg um en t tha t the de ni al of t he $3 7,5 00 lo anreque stco ns ti tu te d a b reac h o f th e Agr eem en t i s wi th ou t m eri t. The Agre em en t re qu ire d the Mai bs to m ai nt ai n a ll ne ces sa ry

li cen se s an d p erm it s an d p ro hi bi te d t he Mai bs fro m pl aci ng ad di ti on al en cu m

br an ces on th e m ortg ag edpro pe rty. G eo rg e Ma ib tes ti fie d t ha t Ocean ha d n otrece iv edth e requi si te pe rm it s fo r la ndcle ari ng or c on st ru ct io n whe n h e m ad e th e $ 37 ,50 0 re qu es t. Fu rth er, atth e su m m ary jud gm en t s ta ge , LNV arg ue d, an d the Mai bs di d n otco nt es t, tha t g ran ti ng th e $ 37 ,50 0 re qu es t wo ul d ha ve pl acedanad di ti on al en cum br an ce o n t he pro pe rty. The Mai bs als o app ear t o arg ue th atth e Roo ker -Feldma n do ctrin e b ars 2 LNV’ s s ui t. Un de r th e Roo ker -Feldma n do ctrin e, fed eral di st ric t co urts an d c ou rts of ap pe al s l acksubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er ce rta in m at te rs rel at edto pre vi ou s st at e co urt l it ig at io n. We hav e h el d t ha t the Roo ker -Feldma n do ctrin e ap pl ie s o nl y

Rooke r v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.C t. 149, 68 L .Ed. 362 (1923); District 2 of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.C t. 1303, 75 L .Ed.2d 206 (1983). 6 Case: 10-13737 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 6 of 8in in st an ces wher e th e st at e p ro ceed in gs ha ve en de d. Ni ch ol so n v . Sh af

e , 55 8 F .3d 12 66 , 12 78 -7 9 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 9) . The d oc tri ne is ap pl ic ab le to cas es wher e th e lo se rs of t he st at e co urt p ro ceed in gs att em ptto in it ia te fed eral di st ric t co urt pr oc eed in gs forth e p ur

po se s o f rev ie w andreject io n o f th os e st at e co urt jud gm en ts . Id . at 1 27 4. Bu t the Mai bs ha ve fai le d t o s ho w th atth e st at e co urt pr oc eed in gs were re so lv edag ai ns t LNV, or t ha t the st at e p ro ceed in gs ev enha d a fin al jud gm en t, an d Roo ker -Feldma n is in ap pl ic ab le inth is cas e. Ni ch ol so n , 55 8 F.3 d a t 1 27 4, 1 27 8- 79 . Fi na ll y , as t o the all eg edco nf li ct -o f-i nt eres t, Dav idCh orte k, a l oa n m an ag er fo r th e co m

pa ny tha t s erv ic edLNV’ s l oans , st at edth at , as was th e cas e he re, the type o f li m it edpo wer o f at to rn ey th atwas g ran te d t o LNV was co m m on ly use d b y

th e FDIC t o fa ci li ta te th e m in is te ria l p ro ces si ng of l oans . This as se rti on is co nf

irmed by loo ki ng at aco py of th e actua l g ran t o f po wer tha t LNV rece iv ed . Thu s, the re was no th in g p er s e p reju di ci al ab ou t the FDIC g ran ti ng LNV exec ut iv es a li m it edpo wer o f at to rn ey , andth e Ma ib s d idno t p ro vi de an y ev id en ce s ho win g o th erwi se . Becaus e th e Ma ib s d efau lt edon th e Agr eem en t, CB T di d n otbre ach th e Agr eem en t, an d the re was no co nf li ct -o f-i nt eres t i n c on ne ct io n wi th LNV’ s l im it ed po wer o f at to rn ey , LNV w as en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t. Acco rd in gl y , we 7 Case: 10-13737 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 7 of 8affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th e Ma ib s’ cou nt ercl ai m an d g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n LNV’s fo recl os ur e act io n. AFFIRMED. 3

The Maibs’ Motion to Strike dated Oc tober 31, 2012, is DENIED. 3 8 Case: 10-13737 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 8 of 8