F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT February11 , 2 008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1332 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-22774 -CV -PCH SERVICI OS DE ALMACEN FISCAL ZONA FRANCA Y MANDATO S S.A., a/ k/ a S.A.F., S.A. Mir av e 3 05 1 (1 28 4) Bu en os Aire s, Arg en ti na , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us RYDER INTERNATIONAL, INC., RYDER SYSTEM INC., a Fl or id a Co rp or at io n, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (F eb ru ar y 11 , 200 8) Be fo re D U BIN A , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: This appeal ar ises out o f the district court’ s grant of De fendant Ry der International, I nc.’ s (“ Ry der”) m otion s to dis m iss Plaintiff Ser vicios de Alm acen Fiscal Z ona Franca

Y Mandatos S.A ., a/k/a S. A. F, S. A. ’ s (“ SA F”) initial c o mp l a i n tan da me n d e dc o mp l a i n t . F o r th e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e db e l o w , w e a f f i rm. I. BACK GROUND O n M ar ch23, 199 5, S A F an d R y de r en te re d in to a

“ Co nf ide nti al ity

and W ork D ev el opm en t A gr ee m en t” f or the pur pose of w orkin g to ge the r to p ur sue pot en tia l c lie nts in A rg en tin a to whom the y c oul d su ppl y c er ta in transpo rt at ion and logi stical services. T he relevant ter m s of this agreem ent are that the parties

“ ag re e to b e w ill ing to j oin tly of fe r au tom oti ve c om

panie s inthe A rg en tin e m ar ke t” tr an spor

ta tio n se rv ic es . “ O nc e ei the r party ha s id en tif

ie d po ssi ble custom ers, such party

will prese nt them

to the other party

in order that both m ay j oin tly pur sue ind ivi dua l c ust om er s. ” “ O nc e co nve rs at ion s w ithpos sib le cu sto m er s are und er

w ay , and b ef

or e sig nin g c ontra ct s w ithsuc h po ssi ble custom ers, Ry der and SA F shall execute an a greem ent openin g relations between th em foreach cu st om er.” On D ecem

ber 19, 1995, SA F and Ry der signed a “ Supplem entary Agre em ent” which set f

orth nam es of the com

panies whom

SA F and Ry der had3

al re ady c ont ac te d. F urthe rm or e, thi s a gr ee m en t se t f orth the spe ci fi c se rv ic es to be pr ov id edby SAF if th e co m pa ni es en te redin to co nt ract s wi th ot he r bu si ne ss es . O n Augus t 30 , 200 5, Ry de r inf orm ed S A F, via le tte r, that i t ha d de ci de d to te rm in at e th e b us in es s ag reem en t ef fect iv e Ma rch 1, 2 00 6. On N ovem

ber 13, 2006, SA F filed suit alleging breach of contract a s well a s us ur pa ti on of b us in es s o pp or tu ni ty andsee ki ng to im po se a co ns tru ct iv e trus t. T he c ru x of

it s c om pla int is that R y de r im pe rm iss ibl y

sou ght out and e nte re d in to co ntr ac ts w ithc om

panie s inA rg en tin a to p ro vid e the ty pe s of se rv ic es se t f

orth i n the a gr ee m en ts and d id s o w ith out e ve r not if

y ing S A F or

giv ing S A F the oppo rt uni ty to part ic ipate in tho se de al s. O n January 8, 200 7, Ry de r fi le d a
m oti on t o di sm iss , w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d onF eb ru ar y 26, 200 7. T he court held that no enforce able contract w as form ed and that the breach of contrac t cl ai m w as ti m e- barr ed

in any e ve nt. T he c ourt a lso f

ound that S A F’ s us ur

pa tio n cl ai m f ai ls a s am atte r of

lawbe ca use Ry de r w as not

af idu ci ar y of S A F, w hic h is a re qui re d e le m en t of

ausurp at ionc la im

und er F lor ida law . I n di sm iss ing the co nstru ct ive tr

ust c la im , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t se t f orth any spe ci fi c re as ons, but rathe r state d th at

“ [i ] n vi ewof

the Co urt’ s r

uli ngs dis cu sse d a

bove , dis m iss al of SAF’s cl ai m

forim po si ti on of c on st ru ct iv e trus t i s al so ap pr op ria te .” Following the district court’ s dism issal of its init ial com plaint, SA F filed4

ana m en de d c om

pla int on M ar ch8, 200 7, w hic h in cl ude d tw o ne wc la im s: co nstru ct ive f

ra ud and p ro m iss or

y e sto ppe l. R

y de r fi le d am oti on t o di sm iss the am en de d c om

pl ai nt on Marc h 2 8, 2 00 7, wh ic h t he co ur t g ran te d o n J un e 1 9, 2 00 7. T he c ourt f

ound that S A F’ s c onstru ct ive f ra ud c la im w ar rante d di sm iss al be ca

use SA F fa ile d to e sta

bli sh tha t R

y de r ow ed

S A F a fi duc iary

duty . I n di sm iss ing SA F’ s pr om iss or

y e sto ppe l c la im , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that any r el ianc e on the prom ises m ade by

Ry der w as unreasonable and that the statut e of lim itations had run. II . ISSUE Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y dis m iss ed

S A F’ s in iti al c om

pla int and am en de d c om

pla int . III. STA ND AR D O F REVIE W Th i s co u rt“ re v i ew [s ] de novo adis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of ac om pla int f or failure to state a

claim upon which re lief could be granted.” Fin an ci al Se c. Ass ur ., Inc. v. Stephens, Inc. , 5 0 0 F. 3 d1 2 7 6 , 1 2 8 2 (1 1 th 2 0 0 7 ). Th i s co u rt“ re v i ew [s ] de
novo the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of [ a] c om pla int f or f ai lur e to s at isf

y the statut e of lim itations .” Ja ck

son v. A str ue , 506 F. 3d 13 49, 1352 (11t h Cir. 2007 ).

IV. DISC US SION A) Brea ch of

Co nt ra ct an d Pr omiss or

y Est op pe l Cl ai msSAF ar gues that the statute of limit ations beg ins to run anew e ach time that Ryder 1 alleg edly contac ted another

customer without notifying SAF . Howeve r, F lorida cour ts have reje cted this argument. Se eGa rd e n I sle s A pa rtm e nts No. 3, In c . v . Co nn oll y , 546 So. 2d 38, 41 (F la . D ist . Ct . App . 1 98 9) (s tatin gthat “ [t]he su bje c t e sc a latio n c la

us e s w e re fi rs t e nf

or c e d in 19 75 and 19 76 re sp e c tiv e ly . Co ntr ary to a pp e lla nts ’ a rgume nt t hat a ne w c a us e of a c tio n a ro se e a c h ti me a

ne w f ive -ye ar e sc a latio n c la

us e be c ame e ff

e c tiv e , w e ho ld t

hat th e c a us e of a c tio n in thi s c a se a c c ru e d at th e tim e of the fi rs t e sc a latio n a

nd that th e c omp la int

fi le d in 19 86 wa s w e ll be yon d th e a

pp lic a ble fi ve -ye ar s tatut e of

lim itatio n p e ri od s [de ri ve d f ro m § 95.11(2)( b)], which commence d in 1975 and 1976.”) . 5 Though the dis trict court found that the agreem ents at issue were m ere ag re em en ts t o a gr ee and thus une nf or ce ab le , w e ne ed

not a ddr es s th is f

ind ing be ca use e ve n if

the a gr ee m en ts w er e en fo rc ea ble , the statut e of

li m itatio ns f

or the plaintiff’ s breach of c ontract claim had run. F lorida Statute § 95.11(2)(b) states that the statut e of

li m itatio ns f

or br ea ch es of

w ri tte n c ontra ct s is f

ive y ears f

ro m the ti m e the c au se of

a ct iona cc ru es . F lor ida

doe s no t a

ppl y the dis co ve ry

r ule to § 95 .11 (2 )(b ), so th e d at e o f acc ru al is th e d at e o f th e fi rs t b reac h. See Abb ot La bs ., In c. v . G le n E le c. Ca

pital , 765 S o. 2d 7 37, 740 ( Fl a. D ist . Ct . App. 200 0) (“ [T ] he le gi sl atur e d idno t i nt en d t o p ro vi de a di sc ov ery ru le in sec ti on 95 .11 (2 )(b ) . . . . To co nc lu de ot he rwis e wou ldrequi re u s t o wri te in to sec ti on 95 .11 (2 )(b ) . . . a discovery rule w hen the legislatu re has not.”) . In this case, the plaintiff adm itted that the f ir st b re ac h oc curr ed

no l at er than Ju ly 24, 200 1. T hus, sin ce S A F did not fi le sui t un til N ove m

be r 13, 200 6, S A F’ s br ea chof c ontra ct c la im is tim e- barr ed . 1 SA F’ s pr om iss or

y e sto ppe l c la im

w as a lso c or

re ct ly dis m iss ed

on s ta tut e of6

lim itatio ns g ro unds . P ro m iss or y e sto ppe l i s an “ equit ab le a ct ionon a c ontra ct , obl igatio n, or

li ab ili ty not f ound ed on a w ri tte n in str

um en t, ” w hic h m

ust be co m m en ce d w ith in f

our y ears f ro m w he n th e la st e le m en t c onst itu tin g th e ca use of act io ns oc cu rs . F LA . S T AT . §§ 9 5. 11( 3) (k ). T he ana ly sis he re is ide nti ca l t o th e an al y sis dis cu sse d a

bove r eg ar din g th e br ea chof c ontra ct c la im , e xc ep t the lim itations period is one y ear shorter. As previously m entioned, SA F has adm itted that the first breac h occurred prior to July 24, 2001. T hus, it was on this date, at the latest, that the last elem ent constitu ting th e cause of action occurred. Since
m or e than f

our y ears pa sse d be tw ee n th is d at e an d th e da te of the c om pla int , the d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l y d i s mi s s e dth i s c l a i m. B) Usurpatio n of Business Opport uniti es, C onstr uctive Trust, and Constru ctive Fra ud Cla ims T he dis tr ic t c ourt c or

re ct ly dis m iss ed

the se c la im s be ca

use Ry de r fa ile d to suf fi ci en tly a lle ge af idu ci ar y r el at ion shi p, a

r equir ed e le m en t i n e ac h of

the se cl ai m s. Fi rs t, S A F al le ge d th at

Ry de r br ea ch ed

it s f idu ci ar y duty to SA F by usur pin g bu sin es s op portun iti es . U nsur pr isi ngl y , the f

ir st r equir em en t f

or suc h a cl ai m is th e ex is te nc e o f a fi du ci ary rel at io ns hi p. See Taylor W oodr ow Hom es7

Fla ., Inc . v. 4/

46 -A Co rp ., 8 5 0 S o . 2 d5 3 6 , 5 4 0 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . Ap p . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “A cause of ac tion for breach of a fiduciary duty is founded o n a fiduciary re la tio nshi p. ”) . S ec ond, S A F al le ge d th at the c ourt sh oul d im

pose ac onstru ct ive trust against Ry der. Sim ilar to a brea ch of fiduciary duty claim , “ it is essential that the confidential relation be establish ed before a constructive trust will be raised.” Q uin n v . Phip

ps , 113 So. 419, 422 (Fla. 1929). Third, SA F alleged that Ry der had co m m itt ed ac onstru ct ive f

ra ud. O nc e ag ai n, af

idu ci ar y r el at ion shi p is r equir ed

in or de r to su ccee d o n s uc h acla im . See Lev y v. Lev y , 862 So. 2d 48 , 53 (F la. 3rd D CA200 2) ( “ Co nstru ct ive f ra ud o cc ur s whe n aduty

und er ac onf ide nti al or fi duc iary r el at ion shi p ha s be enabuse d . . . . ”) . I t i s c le ar f ro m the se c as es that the thresholdrequirem ent for ea ch of these claim s is the existence of a fiduciary relationship , and the dis trict court corr ectly found that su ch a re lationsh ip was ab se nt. SA F pr im ar ily

arg ue s th at

af idu ci ar y r el at ion shi p e xis ts b ec au se Ry de r is a big ge r co m

pany . H ow ev er , the m er e fa ct that R y de r “ stands in a

pos iti on o f gr eate r barg ai nin g po w er by vir tue of it s gl oba l e co nom ic status is . . . not sufficient by

itself to im

pose a fiduciary

oblig ation.” Am . H

onda Motor Co., Inc.
v. Motorcyle I

nfo. Network, Inc. , 39 0 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 17 0, 1 18 0 (M .D. Fla. 2 00 5) . Furtherm ore, as the district court corre ctly point ed out, “ [w ] hen the parties are8

de al ing a t arm ’ s le ngth, af idu ci ar y r el at ion shi p do es not

e xis t be ca

use the re is no dutyim posed on either party

to protect or benefit the other. ” Ta ylor W oodr ow Hom es , 8 5 0 So . 2 dat5 4 1 . Th er ef o re , s i n ce SA F a n dRyd erwe re d ea l i n g atarm ’s length andthe m ere fact that R y der is a lar ger com

pany does not create a fiduciary re la tio nshi p, the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly he ld tha t R

y de r ha d f

ai le d to se t f

orth any fa ct s whic h c oul d gi ve r ise to a fi duc iary obl igatio n. Abse nt s uc h an ob lig at ion , none of SAF ’ s aforem entioned claim s can proceed, and the m otion to dism iss such cl ai m s w as pr ope rl y

gr an te d. IV. CO NC LUS ION Fo r the a fo re m en tio ne d r ea sons , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of Ry de r’ s m oti ons to d ism iss the ini tia l c om pla int and the a m en de d c om

pla int . AFFIR MED.