FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 21, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 76 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 8- cv -0 02 36 -GRJ RICHAR D O. CONBOY, deri va te d o n b eh al f of no m in al de fen da ntBla ckDiam on d C lub, In c., ROBERT H. THUNE, de riv at edon be ha lf o f no m in al de fen da ntBla ckDiam on d C lub, In c. JANET B. THUNE, de riv at edon be ha lf o f no m in al de fen da ntBla ckDiam on d C lub, In c., Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , vers us BLACK DIAMOND PROPERTIES, INC ., STANLEY C. O LSEN, MARINA TAYLOR, JOSEP H G. CAPPUCCILLI, BLACK DIAMOND CLUB, INC., LANDMAR GROUP, LLC, Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 21 , 20 11 )Befo re EDMONDSON an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andBOW DRE, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Thi s d eri va ti ve act io n i nv ol ve s a s pr awli ng res id en ti al go lf c omm un it y in Lecan to , Flo rid a. Bla ckDiam on d i s kno wn fo r it s t op -ran ke d c ou rs es , fam ou sl y de si gn edby T om

Fazi o. Three m em

be rs of thi s p riv at e co m

m un it y , Ric ha rdO. 1 Co nb oy, Rob ertH. Thun e, an d J an etB. Thu ne , su edth e co m m un ity ’s dev el op er, St an le y Ols en , on be ha lf o f Bl ackDiam on d C lub, In c. (“ th e Cl ub ”), the Flo rid a
no t-f or -p ro fitorg an iz at io n fo rm edto pl anth e co m m un it y de ve lo pm en t. No t t o b e
co nf us edwit h t he Club, Bl ackDiam on d P ro pe rti es , Inc . (“ Pro pe rti es , Inc .”) i s a Fl or id a co rp or at io n fo rm edto de ve lo p the co m m un it y , andsp eci fic al ly to h ol d ti tl e to it s fa ci li ti es . In ad di ti on to Ols enan d P ro pe rti es , Inc ., Con bo y an d t he Thu ne s al so su edsev eral of t he Club’s d ire ct or s, al le gi ng va rio us wron gs rel at ed to th e d ev el op m en t o f Bl ackDiam on d. The pa rti es fil edcro ss -m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t o n c ert ai n c ou nt s be fo re the di st ric t co urt. The m ag is tra te jud ge ass ig ne d t o t he cas e is su eda de ta il edrep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , whi ch th e d is tri ctjud ge ad op te d a nd

Honora ble Kar on O. B owdre , United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Alabama , sitti ngby

designation. Golf Digest

has consistently

ranke d Bla ck Diamond’ s Quarr y Course—which f

eatur es a 1 three -hole stre tch that play s throug h an aba ndoned roc k quarr

y —amongthe top 100 course s in the United States. See B lack Diamond for Sale , G O LF D I GE S T , Apr. 26, 2010, www.g olfdig est.com/g olf-cour ses/blogs/g olf-re al-e state/2010/04/black-diamond- for- sale.html. 2ap pr ov ed , den y in g t he Pla in ti ffs ’ m ot io n a ndgrant in g i n p artth e Defen da nt s’

m ot io n. On ly one co un t— br each of f

iduc ia ry an d o th er dut ie s—rem ai ne d fo r tri al ; h owe ve r, th e d is tri ctjud ge gra nt edth e Defen da nt s’ m ot io n t o s tri ke th e Pl ai nt iff s’ jury de m an d. Th e p art ie s co ns en te d t o t ria l b efo re the m ag is tra te jud ge , who he lda fo ur -d ay

be nc h t ria l. In a le ng th y m em or an du m

de ci si on an d o rd er , th e
m ag is tra te jud ge di rect edth e Cl erkto en te r fi na l ju dg m en t i n fa vo r of th e Defen da nt s as to all of t he Pla in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s. The Thu ne s ap pe al th e ad ve rs e ru li ng s ag ai ns t t he m , rai si ng m y ria d i ss ue s. 2 Afte r car efu l re vi ew, we affi rm . I. The lo ng an d s om ewh atco m pl ex hi st ory

of t hi s ca se is well ch ro ni cl edby th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s sev eral op in io ns ; we n eedno t re st at e ithe re. One asp ectof th e b ack gr ou nd , ho wev er, i s ce nt ral to th e is su es be fo re u s an d wo rth no ti ng . Co un t II I of

th e Sec on d Am en de d C om pl ai ntso ug hta de cl arat ory jud gm en t t ha t th e “ Cl ub Pu rch as e Agr eem en t” be twee n t he Club a ndPro pe rti es , Inc . was v oi d
an d u ne nf

or ceab le , as wel l as a de cl arat io n t ha t ce rta in pu rp orte d wai ve rs of fiduc ia ry du ti es of the Club’s o ffi cers an d d ire ct or s wer e al so vo idan d Mr. Conboy , one of the orig inal derivative Plaintiffs, resigned his Club membership, 2 and the mag istrate judg e found that he lost standing onc e his membership sold and tra nsfer red to another owner . Consequently , the cour t dismi ssed him as a pa

rty plaintiff for la ck of subjec t matter jurisdiction. 3un en fo rceabl e. The o th er co un ts of the co m pl ai ntin cl ud edcla im s fo r br each of fiduc ia ry an d o th er dut ie s, fo r su m s wro ng fu ll y pa idfro m

th e Cl ub to Pro pe rti es , In c. in rel at io n t o an a ll eg ed ly une nf or ceab le “ op ti on ” co nt ract , andforin jun ct iv e rel ie f to im

po se anequi tabl e trus t upo n t he fun ds tra ns ferr edfro m th e Cl ub to Pro pe rti es , Inc
. Inad di ti on to co m

pe ns at ory da m ag es , equ it ab le rel ie f, at to rn ey ’s fees , and
co st s an d e xp en se s, t he Pla in ti ffs ge ne ral ly sou gh t p un it iv e d am ag es to pu ni sh an d de te r eac h Def

en da ntfro m

furth er wro ng fu l co nduc t. Sp eci fic al ly, th ey so ug ht pu ni ti ve da m ag es forbre ach of f iduc ia ry an d o th er dut ie s. II. The Thu ne s ra is e a v ari ety of i ss ue s o n app eal , im

pl ic at in g a ll m an ne r of
co m m on law co nt ractan d p ro pe rty pri nc ip le s, fr om th e b us in es s ju dg m en t ru le to th e ru le ag ai ns t p erp etui ti es . The Th un es als o ra is e in te res ti ng th eo rie s s uc h a s equi tabl e es to pp el of afiduc ia ry to ass ertth e st atut e o f li m it at io ns . Howev er, aft er
rev ie win g t he reco rdbe lo w, th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s op in io ns , andth e b rie fs on ap pe al , we fin d a ll is su es lar ge ly w it ho utm eri t. The on ly iss ue we br ie fly pau se to ad dr es s i nv ol ve s t he fed eral rig htto a jury. Bas edon th ei r reque stforpu ni ti ve da m ag es , th e Thu ne s ar gu e th atth e di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g t he ir f ed eral rig htto a jury. Und er the Sev en th

4Am en dm en t, t he Thu ne s m ay be co rrec t. Se e Cu rt is v. Lo ethe r , 41 5 U.S. 1 89 , 19 6, 94 S. Ct. 1 00 5, 1 00 9 (1 97 4) ; Dayv. W oo dw or th , 54 U.S. 36 3, 3 71 , 14 L. Ed. 18 1, 18 1 (1 85 1) ; Hil l v. Winn -Dix ie St or es , Inc
. , 93 4 F .2d15 18 , 15 24 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). Tho ug h n on e o f th e au th or it ie s ci te d b y th e Thu ne s d ire ct ly sup po rts th e pr op os it io n t ha t a f

ed eral rig htto a jury exi st s i n e ve ry cas e in whi cha pl ai nt iff
se ek s p un it iv e d am ag es , th os e au th or it ie s atlea stsupp ort t he id ea t ha t s uc h arig ht may ex is t i n c ert ai n c as es . Howev er, we n eedno t d eci de th atqu es ti on he re. Eve n
as su m in g t ha t t he Thu ne s h adth e ri gh t t o ajury on th ei r cl ai m forpu ni ti ve da m ag es in th is cas e, th e que st io n o f da m ag es wou ldno t h av e rea ch edth e jury be cau se th e m ag is tra te jud ge co rrec tl y rul edag ai ns t t he Thu ne s o n a ll th ei r cl ai m s
as a m atte r of

law. Th eref

or e, an y po ss ib le erro r in de nyin g t he Thu ne s’ ass ert ed rig htto a jury on p un it iv e d am ag es is ha rm le ss . Se e Bur ns v. La wthe r , 53 F.3d 12 37 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at“ a h arm le ss erro r an al y si s m ay be ap pl ie d t o d en ia ls of ajury tri al
. . . whe re the is su es co ul d h av e b eendi sp os edof
on su m m ary jud gm en t o r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ). III. The m ag is tra te jud ge au th or eda th or ou gh , well -rea so ne d o pi ni onba se d o n hi s fi nd in gs aft er a fo ur -d ay be nc h t ria l. He co rrec tl y st at edan d app li edth e la w to th e co nv ol ut edfact s o f th is cas e, an d t he is su es rai se d o n app eal pre se ntno reas on

5to di stur

b h is so un d ru li ng . Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d eci si onof t he di stric t co urt. AFFIRMED.

6