FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 12, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13712 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -606 67 -C V -J IC W I L L I A M M . R O G E R S , C . M Y L E T T , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s J O S E P H P . N A C C H I O , P H I L L I P F . A N S C H U T Z , D R A K E T E M P E S T , J O E L A RN O L D , R I C H A R D L . W E S T O N , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 12, 2007)2

B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T h is is as e c u r itie s f

r au d c a s e b r o u g h t b y W illia m M . R o g e r s a n d C . M y le tt. T h ei r seco n d am en d ed co m p l ai n t(th e “ co m p l ai n t ”), co n si st i n g o f 3 4 4 p ag es, cont ai ns 25 coun t s. T he com pl ai nti ncl ud es cl ai m s und erthe fe dera l R IC O st atut e, 18 U . S . C . § 1964; the S e c ur i t i e s A c tof 1934 § 10( b) , 15 U . S . C . § 78j ( b) ; the F l or i daR I C O s t a tut e , F l a . S t a t . § 772. 103; the C ol or a do R I C O s t a tut e , C ol o. R e v. S t a t . § 18- 17- 104; C ol or a do a nd F l or i das e c ur i t i e s l a w s ; a nd c l a i m s tha tthe d e f e n d a n ts a id e d a n d ab e tte d th e s e s ta tu to ry v io la tio n s . T h e c o m p la in t a ls o a s s e r ts c l a i m s ba s e d on c om m on l a w f r aud, f r audul e nti nduc e m e nt , f r audul e nt c o n c e a lm e n t, a n d c o n s p ir a c y . Th e d e f e n d a n t s mo v e d t o d i s mi s s th e c o mp l a i n t( w i th r e s p e c tt o th e c l a i ms as se rt ed agai nstthem ) on a vari ety of groun ds. O n Jun e 5, 20 06 , the di stri ctcourt rul e d on the i rm ot i ons a nd di s pos e d of thi s c a s e w i th af

i na l j udgm e nt . R oge r s a nd M y le tt n o w ap p e a l, c o n te n d in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y ( 1 ) d is m is s in g th e ir f e d e r a l s e c u r itie s c la im s in v o lv in g s to c kin Q w e s t C o m m u n ic a tio n s I n te rn a tio n a l, I nc . ( “ Q w e s t ” ) a s ba rr e d by the appl i c abl e s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons ors t a tut e of r e pos e , ( 2) de t e rm i ni ng tha ti tdi d notha ve pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on ove rm a ny of the nam ed defendant s, (3) di sm i ss i ng the re m ai ni ng coun t s of the com pl ai ntun derWe add re ss t hefe deral se curiti e s c laimsfirs t be c a us ethey arebrought u

nder 1 5 U .S. C. 1 § 78j, which provides f

or nationwide serviceof proc ess. See 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d). H owever, such claims are “ insubstantial, impl ausible, or other wise complete ly

devoid of merit,” a plaintiff may not take adva

ntag e of thenationwide ser vice of proce ss provisions. S ee Republic of Panama v. B CCIHoldings ( Lux emborg) S.A., 119 F.3d 935, 942 n. 9 ( 11th Cir. 1997). 3 F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 12 (b)( 6) for f ai l ure t o st at e acl ai m up on w hi ch r e l i e f c oul d be gr a nt e d, a nd ( 4) di s m i s s i ng the c om pl a i ntw i th pr e j udi c e w i thout al l ow i ng them an op po rtun i ty t o am end. In addi t i on , they c hal l enge the di stri ct c our t ’ s de c i s i on or de r i ng the m t o pa y a$500 f i ne , a s as a nc t i on f

orvi ol a t i ng F e d e r a l R u le o f

C iv il P r o c e d u r e 1 1 , a n d a w a r d in g th e d e f e n d a n ts a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s . I . W e s t artw i th app el l ant s’ fi rs tar gu m entfor r ever sa l – thatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d i n di s m i s s i ng the i rf e de r a l s e c ur i t i e s l a w c l a i m s i nvol vi ng the i rpur c ha s e of Q ue s ts t oc k a s t i m e - ba rr e d. A di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on a nd appl i c a t i on of the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons i s r e vi e w e d de novo. T e llo v . D e a n W itte rR e y n o ld s , I n c ., 4 1 0 F .3 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . U n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 8 ( b ) , “ap r iv a te 1 ri gh tof ac t i on thati nv ol ves acl ai m of fr aud, dece i t , m ani pu l at i on , or contri vance i n c ontr a ve nt i on of

ar e gul a t ory r e qui r e m e ntc onc e rni ng s e c ur i t i e s l a w s . . . m a y be b r o u g h t n o t la te rth a n th e e a r lie ro f –( 1 ) 2 y e a r s a f

te rth e d is c o v e ry o f

th e f a c ts c ons t i tut i ng the vi ol a t i on; or( 2) 5 y e a r s a f t e rs uc h vi ol a t i on. ” 28 U . S . C . § 1658( b) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . U nl i ke the tw o- y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons w hi c h be gi ns t o run4

a f t e rthe c aus e of

a c t i on a c c rue s , the f

i ve - y e a rpe r i od be gi nni ng a tthe t i m e of the v io la tio n is as ta tu te o f

r e p o s e m e a n t to s e rv e a s ac u to f f f o rac au s e o f

a c tio n . L a m pf , P l e va , L i pki nd, P rupi s & P e t i gr ow v. G i l be r t s on, 501 U . S . 350, 363, 111 S . C t . 2773, 2782, 115 L . E d. 2d 321 ( 1991) ( c ons trui ng the s t a tut e unde rthe p r e v io u s o n e - a n d th r e e - y e a rs tru c tu r e ) . A s s u c h , to llin g p r in c ip le s d o n o t ap p ly to th e f iv e - y e a rs ta tu te o f

r e p o s e . T e llo , 4 1 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 9 n . 5 . B e c au s e R o g e r s a n d M y le tt d id n o t f ile th e iro r ig in a l c o m p la in t u n til A pri l 20 05 , m ore than fi ve ye ar s a ft erthey bou gh tQ w es tst ock, the di stri ctcourt corr ec t l y det erm i ned thatthe fe dera l se curi t i es cl ai m s w er e barre d b y the fi ve-y ea r st atut e of r epose. II . A di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al for l ac k o f per sonal j uri sdi ct i on un der F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 12( b) ( 2) i s a l s o r e vi e w e d de novo. S c ul pt c ha i r , I nc . v. C e ntury A r t s , L t d. , 94 F . 3d 623, 626 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . D e t e rm i ni ng w he the rthe d i stri ctco u rth ad p erso n al j u ri sd i ct i o n i n v o l v es tw o st ep s. Id . “ F i rst , w e m u st det erm i ne w hether the F l ori da l on g-arm st atut e provi des abasi s f or pers on al ju r is d ic tio n . I f

s o , th e n w e m u s t d e te rm in e w h e th e rs u f f ic ie n t m in im u m c o n ta c ts e xi s tbe tw e e n the de f

e nda nt s a nd the f

orum s t a t e s o a s t o s a t i s f y tr a di t i ona l not i ons o f f a irp la y a n ds u b s ta n tia l ju s tic e u n d e rth e D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e o f th e F o u r te e n th5

A m endm ent . ” I d. (quo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). U nd erF l ori da l aw , the pl ai nt i ff be a r s the bur de n of

pr ovi ng pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on. I d. a t627 ( “ W he n ade f e nda nt r a is e s , th r o u g h a f

f id a v its , d o c u m e n ts o rte s tim o n y , am e r ito r io u s c h a lle n g e to pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on, the bur de n s hi f t s t o the pl a i nt i f

f t o pr ove j ur i s di c t i on by af fi davi t s, t es t i m on y or docum ent s. ”) . T h e F lo r id alo n g - a rm s ta tu te s ta te s , in p e r tin e n t p a r t: ( 1) A ny pe r s on, w he the rornotac i t i z e n orr e s i de ntof thi s s t a t e , w ho p e r s o n a lly o rth r o u g h a n a g e n t d o e s a n y o f th e a c ts e n u m e r a te d in th is su b sect i o n th ereb y su b m i t s h i m sel f o r h ersel f an d , i f h e o r sh e i s a na tur a l pe r s on, hi s orhe rpe r s ona l r e pr e s e nt a t i ve t o the j ur i s di c t i on of the c our t s of

thi s s t a t e f

ora ny c aus e of

a c t i on a r i s i ng f

r om the doi ng o f an y o f th e fo l l o w i n g act s:

. . . . (b) C om m i tt i ng a t ort i ou s a ctw i thi n thi s s t at e.

. . . . ( f ) C aus i ng i nj ury t o pe r s ons orpr ope r ty w i thi n thi s s t a t e a r i s i ng out of a n a c torom i s s i on by the de f e nda ntout s i de thi s s t a t e , i f , a torabout the t i m e of the i nj ury, ei ther: 1. T he defendantw as engaged i n sol i ci t at i on or se rvi ce ac t i vi t i es w i thi n thi s s t a t e ; or 2. P rodu ct s, m at er i al s, or thi ng s proce ss ed, se rvi ce d, or m anufactured b y th e d e f

e n d a n t a n y w h e r e w e r e u s e d o rc o n s u m e d w ith in th is s ta te in the ordi narycourse of com m er ce , tra de, or use.

. . . . ( 2 ) A d e f e n d a n t w h o is e n g a g e d in s u b s ta n tia l a n d n o t is o la te d a c tiv ity w i thi n thi s s t at e, w hether s uch act i vi ty i s w ho l l y i nt er st at e, i ntra st at e, or otherw i se , i s s ubj ec tt o the j uri sdi ct i on of the court s of thi s s t at e, w h eth er o r n o tth e cl ai m ari ses fro m th atact i v i ty. F l a . S t a t . § 48. 193. G e ne r a l l y , thi s s e c t i on ha s be e n i nt e rpr e t e d t o i nc l ude t or t i ous ac t s c om m i tt ed ou t si de of F l ori da thatcause i nj ury w i thi n F l ori da. P osner v. E ss ex6

I ns . C o. , L t d. , 178 F . 3d 1209, 1217 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . H ow e ve r , the F l or i da S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t ad e f e n d a n t’s a c tio n s ta k e n w ith in th e s c o p e o f h is e m pl oy m e nta s ac orpor a t e of f i c e rw i l l notpr ovi de aba s i s f orpe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on u n d e rth e lo n g - a rm s ta tu te . D o e v . T h o m p s o n , 6 2 0 S o .2 d 1 0 0 4 , 1 0 0 6 ( F la . 1 9 9 3 ) . W i th reg ard t o § 4 8 . 1 9 3 (1 )(f), th e co u rth as h el d th ateco n o m i c i n j u ry, u n a c c o m p a n ie d b y p h y s ic a l in ju ry o rp r o p e r ty d a m a g e , is in s u f f ic ie n t to s u b

je c t a non- r e s i de ntde f

e nda ntt o pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on i n F l or i da . A e tnaL i f e & C a s . C o. v . T h erm -O -D i sc, In c. , 5 1 1 S o . 2 d 9 9 2 , 9 9 4 (F l a. 1 9 8 7 ). F i n al l y, t o est ab l i sh ge ne r a l pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on unde r§ 48. 193( 2) , the de f e nda nt ’ s a c t i vi t i e s m us tbe “c o n s id e r e d c o lle c tiv e ly a n d s h o w ag e n e r a l c o u r s e o f b u s in e s s a c tiv ity in th e s ta te for pecuni ary benef

i t . ” S tub bs v. W yndh am N as sau R es ortand C ry st al P al ac e C as i no , 44 7 F . 3d 13 57 , 13 61 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). If the pl ai nt i ff

es t abl i shes a bas i s f

or j uri sdi ct i on un der the F l ori da l on g-arm s ta tu te , h e m u s t a ls o e s tab lis h th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a s th e m in im u m c o n ta c ts w ith F l or i dane c e s s a ry t o s a t i s f y due pr oc e s s . S c ul pt c ha i r , 94 F . 3d a t626. “ T he D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e pr ot e c t s a n i ndi vi dua l ’ s l i be r ty i nt e r e s ti n notbe i ng s ubj e c tt o the bi ndi ng j udgm e nt s of

af orum w i th w hi c h he ha s e s t abl i s he d no m e a ni ngf ul c ont a c t s , t i e s , orr e l a t i ons . ” B ur ge rK i ng C orp. v. R udz e w i c z , 471 U . S . 462, 471- 7 2 , 1 0 5 S .C t. 2 1 7 4 , 2 1 8 1 - 8 2 , 8 5 L .E d .2 d 5 2 8 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . F o rg e n e r a l ju r is d ic tio n , a7

non- r e s i de ntde f

e nda nt ’ s c ont a c t s w i th the f orum tha ta r e unr e l a t e d t o the l i t i ga t i on m us tbe s ubs t a nt i a l , s how i ng c ont i nuous a nd s y s t e m a t i c c ont a c t s be tw e e n the de f e nda nta nd the f

orum s t a t e . M e i e rv. S un I nt e rn. H ot e l s , L t d. , 288 F . 3d 1264, 1 2 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T o c o n s titu te m in im u m c o n ta c ts f o rp u rp o s e s o f

s p e c if ic j ur i s di c t i on, ade f

e nda nt ' s c ont a c t s w i th the f orum m us ts a t i s f

y thr e e c r i t e r i a : ( 1) th e c o n ta c ts m u s t b e r e la te d to th e p la in tif f 's c au s e o f

a c tio n o rh a v e g iv e n r is e to it; ( 2 ) th e c o n ta c ts m u s t in v o lv e s o m e a c t b y w h ic h th e d e f e n d a n t p u rp o s e f

u lly a v a ils i t s e l f of the pr i vi l e ge of

c onduc t i ng a c t i vi t i e s w i thi n the f orum , thus i nvoki ng the be ne f i t s a nd pr ot e c t i ons of

i t s l a w s ; a nd ( 3) the de f e nda nt ' s c ont a c t s w i th the f orum m ustbe such thatthe defendantshou l d rea sonabl y a nt i ci pat e bei ng hal ed i nt o cou rt there . M cG ow v. M cC urry , 41 2 F . 3d 12 07 , 12 14 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). R og er s a nd M yl ettfa i l ed t o i dent i fyany a ct s of a ny defe nd antthatw er e di re ct ed t ow ar ds the st at e of F l ori da, or show thatany def endanthad caused i nj ury i n F l or i daf

orpurpos e s of

§ 48. 193( 1) ( b) . N e xt , be c aus e the y di d notc l a i m t o ha ve s us t a i ne d phy s i c a l i nj ury orpr ope r ty da m a ge , the y f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h j ur i s di c t i on unde r§ 48. 193( 1) ( f

) . F i na l l y , be c aus e the y f a i l e d t o pr ovi de a ny doc um e nt a t i on s h o w in g th a t a n y d e f

e n d a n t h a d e n g a g e d in “s u b s ta n tia l o rc o n tin u o u s a c tiv ity ” in F lo r id a , th e y f

a ile d to e s tab lis h ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r§ 4 8 .1 9 3 ( 2 ) . M o r e o v e r , e v e n if they had es t abl i shed a bas i s f or j uri sdi ct i on un der the F l ori da l on g-arm st atut e, they8

di d notpr ovi de a ny s uppor tf orthe not i on tha ta ny de f e nda ntha d the m i ni m um cont ac t s w i th F l ori da neces sa ryt o sat i sf y due proces s. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d is m is s in g d e f e n d a n ts f r o m th e c a s e o n th e g r o u n d th a t it la c k e d ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e p e r s o n . I I I . A di sm i ss al for f

ai l ure t o st at e acl ai m un der R ul e 12(b)(6) i s r evi ew ed d e n o v o , “ta k in g th e f

a c ts a lle g e d in th e c o m p la in t a s tru e a n d c o n s tru in g th e m in the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the pl a i nt i f

f . ” W i l l i a m s v. B oa r d of R e ge nt s of

U ni v. S y s . o f G A , 4 7 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 9 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . D is m is s a l is o n ly ap p r o p r ia te

“ w he n the m ova ntde m ons tr a t e s be y ond doubttha tthe pl a i nt i f f c a n pr ove no s e tof f a c t s i n s uppor tof

hi s c l a i m w hi c h w oul d e nt i t l e hi m t o r e l i e f . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ C onc l us ory a l l e ga t i ons , unw a rr a nt e d de duc t i on of fa ct s or l egal concl usi on s m as qu er adi ng as fa ct s w i l l no tpreventdi sm i ss al . ” J a c ks on v. B e l l S outh T e l e c om m uni c a t i ons , 372 F . 3d 1250, 1263 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( q u o t a t i o n m a rk s o m i tt e d ) . S i n c e R o g e r s a n d My l e ttwe r e p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , we co n stru e th e co m p l ai n tm o re l i b eral l y th an w e w o u l d h ad i tb een d raft ed b y a la w y e r . S e e P o w e ll v . L e n n o n , 9 1 4 F .2 d 1 4 5 9 , 1 4 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . A . T he F l ori da R IC O st atut e, F l a. S t at . § 7 72 . 10 3, st at es thati ti s unl aw ful for a9

p e r s o n ( 1 ) to u s e o rin v e s t p r o c e e d s r e c e iv e d th r o u g h ap a tte rn o f c r im in a l a c tiv ity t o e s t abl i s h orope r a t e a n e nt e rpr i s e , ( 2) t o a c qui r e orm a i nt a i n a n i nt e r e s ti n or c ontr ol of

a n e nt e rpr i s e thr ough apa tt e rn of c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty , ( 3) t o c onduc tor part i ci pat e i n an ent erpri se throu gh a patt ern o f c ri m i nal ac t i vi ty, or (4) t o con spi re t o d o any of the abov e prohi bi t ed ac t i vi t i es . F l a. S t at . § 7 72 . 10 3. B ec ause § 77 2. 10 3 i s patt erned aft erthe fe dera l R IC O st atut e, the F l ori da court s have l oo ked t o de c i s i ons i nt e rpr e t i ng the f e de r a l s t a tut e i n i nt e rpr e t i ng § 772. 103. J a c ks on, 372 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 3 - 6 4 . T he f e de r a l R I C O s t a tut e pe rm i t s “ [ a ] ny pe r s on i nj ur e d i n hi s bus i ne s s or p r o p e r ty b y r e a s o n o f

av io la tio n ” o f

R I C O 's c r im in a l p r o v is io n s to r e c o v e rtr e b le d a m a g e s a n d a tto rn e y ’s f e e s . 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 4 ( c ) ; M c C a le b v . A .O . S m ith C o rp ., 20 0 F . 3d 74 7, 75 1 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). “ T he four el em ent s of c i vi l R IC O l i abi l i ty a re (1) c on du ct , (2) of a n ent erpri se , (3) throu gh a patt ern, (4) of r ac ket ee ri ng ac t i vi ty. ” L a n g f o r d v . R ite A id o f

A la ., I n c ., 2 3 1 F .3 d 1 3 0 8 , 1 3 1 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) .

“ P l a i nt i f f s i n s uc h a n a c t i on m us ti de nt i f y a nd pr ove apa tt e rn of r a c ke t e e r i ng ac t i vi ty, defi ned as tw o ‘ predi ca t e a ct s’ of ra cket ee ri ng ac t i vi ty w i thi n a 10 -y ea r pe r i od. ” I d. a t1311- 12 ( c i t i ng 18 U . S . C . § 1961( 5) ) . “ T he phr a s e ‘ r a c ke t e e r i ng ac t i vi ty’ i s def

i ned as a ny ac tw hi ch i s i nd i ct abl e und era l engthy l i stof cr i m i nal of f e ns e s , ” i nc l udi ng a ny a c torthr e a ti nvol vi ng m ur de r , ki dnapi ng, ga m bl i ng,10

ar son, robb ery, ext ort i on , bri bery , m ai l fr aud, w i re fr aud, coun t er fe i t i ng , et c. Id. at 1 3 1 2 ; s e e a ls o 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 1 ( 1 ) . “I n o r d e rto s u rv iv e am o tio n to d is m is s , ap la in tif f m u s t a lle g e f

a c ts suff i ci entt o sup po rtea ch of the st atut ory e l em ent s f or atl ea sttw o o f the pl ea ded pr e di c a t e a c t s . ” R e publ i c of P a na m av. B C C I H ol di ngs ( L uxe m bour g) S . A . , 119 F . 3 d 9 3 5 , 9 4 9 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ). A co m p l ai n tth atst at es a cl ai m o f frau d m u st sa t i sf y F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 9(b), w hi ch st at es that“ the ci rc um st ance s c ons t i tut i ng f

r aud orm i s t a ke s ha l l be s t a t e d w i th pa r t i c ul a r i ty . ” Z i e m bav. C a s c a de I nt e rn. , I nc . , 256 F . 3d 1194, 1202 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . “ R ul e 9( b) i s s a t i s f i e d i f the c om pl a i nts e t s f

or th ( 1) pr e c i s e l y w ha ts t a t e m e nt s w e r e m a de i n w ha tdoc um e nt s or or a l r e pr e s e nt a t i ons orw ha tom i s s i ons w e r e m a de , a nd ( 2) the t i m e a nd pl a c e of e a c h s uc h s t a t e m e nta nd pe r s on r e s pons i bl e f orm a ki ng ( or , i n the c a s e of om i s s i ons , notm a ki ng) s a m e , a nd ( 3) the c ont e ntof s uc h s t a t e m e nt s a nd the m anner i n w hi ch they m i sl ed the pl ai nt i ff , and (4) w hatthe defendant s obt ai ned as ac o n s e q u e n c e o f

th e f r au d .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . M oreover, t o rec ov eron a c i vi l R IC O cl ai m , a pl ai nt i ff m ustshow that“ he has been i nj ured i n h i s busi ness or prop erty by the cond uctconst i tut i ng the vi ol at i on . ” S e di m a , S . P . R . L . v. I m r e x C o. , I nc . , 473 U . S . 479, 496, 105 S . C t . 3275, 3285, 87 L .E d .2 d 3 4 6 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) .Rogers and Mylett argue that the district cour t erre d in determiningthat the fe deral 2 RI CO claims ag ainst Graha m, Hall, and Szeliga w erebarred by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Ac t of 1995 (the “ PSLRA”). B eca use the statute c an be read two w ays and thereis no published caselaw dire ctly on point, it i s unclea

r whether the district c ourt erred in deter mining that the claims were ba

rre d. Nevertheless, wemay aff irm the district court on any ground supported by

the re cord. F isherman Ag ainst Destruc tion of the Environment, Inc. v. Closter Fa rms, 300 F.3d 1294, 1296 ( 11th Cir. 2002). Be cause , as discussed a bove, the c omplaint failed to state a fe deral RI CO claim ag ainst Graha m, Hall, or Szeliga, it is unnece ssary to determine whether such claims were ba

rre d by the PSLRA.

11 T he com pl ai ntfa i l ed t o al l ege s peci fi c f ac t s w i th regard t o (1) w hi ch de f e nda ntm a de c e rt a i n s t a t e m e nt s , ( 2) w hi c h s t a t e m e nt s a nd a c t s c ons t i tut e d the p red i cat e act s, (3 ) R o g ers an d M yl ett ’ s rel i an ce o n an y o f th e sp eci fi c st at em en t s, or( 4) the m a nne ri n w hi c h R oge r s a nd M y l e ttw e r e m i s l e d by a ny s t a t e m e nt . T he d is tr ic t c o u r t th e r e f

o r e c o m m itte d n o e rr o rin h o ld in g th a t th e c o m p la in t f a ile d to s t a t e ac l a i m a g a i n s ta n y d e f e n d a n tu n d e rth e Fl o r i d aRI CO s t a tu t e . Fo rth e s a me reaso n s, w e affi rm th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d i sm i ssal o f th e fed eral R IC O co u n t s ag ai n st G ra ham , H al l , and S ze l i ga. 2 B. T h e C o lo r a d o R I C O s ta tu te , C o lo . R e v . S ta t. § 1 8 - 1 7 - 1 0 4 , s ta te s th a t it is unl a w f ul f orape r s on ( 1) t o us e ori nve s tpr oc e e ds r e c e i ve d thr ough apa tt e rn of cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty t o est abl i sh or op er at e a n ent erpri se , (2) t o acqui re or m ai nt ai n an in te r e s t in o rc o n tr o l o f

a n e n te rp r is e th r o u g h ap a tte rn o f c r im in a l a c tiv ity , ( 3 ) to c onduc torpa r t i c i pa t e i n a n e nt e rpr i s e thr ough apa tt e rn of c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty , or ( 4) t o c ons pi r e t o do a ny of the above pr ohi bi t e d a c t i vi t i e s . C ol o. R e v. S t a t . § 18-12

17 -104 . A l i m i t at i on s per i od i s notexpres sl y provi ded for act i on s broug htun der the s t a tut e . S e e C ol o. R e v. S t a t . § 13- 80- 101, e ts e q. H ow e ve r , a l l a c t i ons f or fr aud, m i sr epre se nt at i on , conceal m ent , or decei tm ustbe brou gh tw i thi n three ye ar s a f t e ra c c ru a l . C o l o . R e v . S t a t . § 1 3 - 8 0 - 1 0 1 ( 1 ) ( c ) . Mo r e o v e r , u n d e rC o l o r a d o l a w, a l l a c t i ons “ f

orw hi c h no othe rpe r i od of l i m i t a t i on i s pr ovi de d” m us tbe c o m m e n c e d w ith in tw o y e a r s a f te rth e c au s e o f

a c tio n a c c ru e s . C o lo . R e v . S ta t. § 1 3 - 8 0 - 1 0 2 ( 1 ) ( I ) . R e ga r dl e s s of

w hi c h s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons appl i e s , be c aus e R oge r s a nd M yl ettconcede thatthe st atut e of l i m i t at i on s began t o run no l at erthan M ar ch 2 0 0 2 , th e y w e r e r e q u ir e d to f ile th e irc la im n o la te rth a n M a r c h 2 0 0 5 . T h e y d id not ; he nc e , the i rC ol or a do R I C O c l a i m s w e r e t i m e - ba rr e d. C. A s di s c us s e d above , ac om pl a i nttha ts t a t e s ac l a i m of c om m on l a w f

r aud m us ts a t i s f

y R ul e 9( b) , w hi c h s t a t e s tha t“ the c i r c um s t a nc e s c ons t i tut i ng f r aud or m i st ake s hal l be st at ed w i th p art i cul ar i ty. ” Z i em ba, 25 6 F . 3d at12 02 . B ec ause , as di sc usse d abo ve, the com pl ai ntfa i l ed t o al l ege thatR og er s a nd M yl ettw er e i nfl uenced by any part i cul arst at em entof any part i cul ardefe nd ant , the di stri ctcourt di d note rri n c onc l udi ng tha tthe c om pl a i ntf a i l e d t o s t a t e ac l a i m f

orf r aud, f r a u d u le n t in d u c e m e n t, o rf r au d u le n t c o n c e a lm e n t.13 D. In F l o ri d a, “ [a] p erso n co m m i t s th efti f h e o r sh e k n o w i n g l y o b t ai n s o r u ses, or endeavors t o o bt ai n o r t o u se , the prop erty of a no ther w i th i nt entt o, ei ther te m p o r a r ily o rp e rm a n e n tly : ( a ) [ d ]e p r iv e th e o th e rp e r s o n o f ar ig h t to th e p r o p e r ty o rab e n e f

i tf r o m th e p r o p e r ty [ ; o r ] ( b ) [ a ] p p r o p r i a t e th e p r o p e r ty t o h i s o rh e ro wn u s e o rto th e u s e o f

a n y p e r s o n n o t e n title d to th e u s e o f th e p r o p e r ty .” F la . S ta t. § 812. 014. F orpurpos e s of § 812. 014, “ obt a i ns orus e s ” i nc l ude s “ obt a i ni ng prop erty by f

raud , w i l l ful m i sr epre se nt at i on of a f uture a ct , or fa l se prom i se . ” F l a. S ta t. § 8 1 2 .0 1 2 ( 3 ) ( c ) . R og er s a nd M yl ettbo ug htQ w es tst ock o n the op en m arket . T he di stri ct c our tc orr e c t l y de t e rm i ne d tha tnone of the de f e nda nt s obt a i ne d orus e d R oge r s or M yl ett ’ s property. T hu s, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n d i sm i ss i ng the ci vi l theft c l a i m. E. R oge r s a nd M y l e tt ’ s C ol or a do s e c ur i t i e s c l a i m s w e r e br oughtunde rC ol o. R e v. S t a t . §§ 11- 51- 501 a nd 11- 51- 604. I n C ol or a do, “ [ a ] l l a c t i ons f orf r aud, m i sr epre se nt at i on , conceal m ent , or decei t ” m ustbe brou gh t“ w i thi n three ye ar s a f te rth e c au s e o f

a c tio n a c c ru e s .” C o lo . R e v . S ta t. § 1 3 - 8 0 - 1 0 1 ( 1 ) ( c ) . F ur the rm or e , “ no pe r s on m a y s ue unde rs ubs e c t i on ( 3) or( 4) of pa r a gr aph ( b) or14

(c ) of s ub se ct i on (5) of [ C ol o. R ev. S t at . § 1 1-51 -604 ] m ore than three ye ar s a ft er the di s c ove ry of

f a c t s gi vi ng r i s e t o ac aus e of a c t i on unde rs ubs e c t i on ( 3) or( 4) of [ § 11- 51- 604] ora f

t e rs uc h di s c ove ry s houl d ha ve be e n m a de by the e xe r c i s e of r e a s onabl e di l i ge nc e a nd i n no e ve ntm or e tha n f i ve y e a r s a f

t e rthe pur c ha s e or sa l e, or, as tho se prov i si on s pert ai n t o i nv es tm entadvi se rs , fe dera l covered a dvi s e r s , i nve s tm e nta dvi s e rr e pr e s e nt a t i ve s , a nd pe r s ons w ho pr ovi de i nve s tm e nt a dvi s ory s e rvi c e s , m or e tha n f i ve y e a r s a f

t e rthe da t e of

the vi ol a t i on. ” C ol o. R e v. S ta t. § 1 1 - 5 1 - 6 0 4 ( 8 ) . B e c aus e , a s di s c us s e d above , R oge r s a nd M y l e ttdi d notf i l e the i rc om pl a i nt unt i l A pr i l 2005, the C ol or a do s e c ur i t i e s c l a i m s , l i ke thos e br oughtunde rF l or i da l aw , w ere b arred b y th e ap p l i cab l e st at e l aw p ro v i si o n s. F. T o su p p o rta cl ai m fo r a fed eral o r st at e R IC O co n sp i racy, a p l ai n t i ff m u st

“ al l ege a n i l l egal agre em entt o v i ol at e asubst ant i ve prov i si on of the R IC O st atut e. ” J a c ks on, 372 F . 3d a t1269. T hus , w he r e apl a i nt i f f f a i l s t o s t a t e aR I C O c l a i m a nd th e c o n s p ir a c y c o u n t d o e s n o t c o n ta in a d d itio n a l a lle g a tio n s , th e c o n s p ir a c y c la im nece ss ar i l y f

ai l s. Id. S i m i l ar l y, t o b e l i abl e f or ai di ng and abett i ng a c ri m e, there m us tbe a n unde r l y i ng c r i m e t o a i d a nd abe t . S e e R udol ph v. A r thurA nde r s on & C o ., 8 0 0 F .2 d 1 0 4 0 , 1 0 4 7 n . 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) .With reg ard to Rog ers a nd Mylett’s argument that the complaint should have be en 3 dismiss ed without prejudiceas to the def endants over whom the district cour t lacked personal 15 S i n ce th e co m p l ai n tfai l ed t o st at e a cl ai m o n an y o f th e u n d erl yi n g co u n t s, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrby di s m i s s i ng the c l a i m s of c ons pi r a c y a nd a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng. I V. W e r e vi e w “ the de ni a l of am ot i on t o a m e nd ac om pl a i ntf ora n abus e of di s c r e t i on. ” G r e e n L e a f N ur s e ry v. E . I . D uP ontD e N e m our s & C o. , 341 F . 3d 12 92 , 13 00 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). L ea ve t o am end sho ul d b e f re el y gi ven w hen j ust i ce s o r e qui r e s . F e de r a l R ul e of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 15( a ) . G e ne r a l l y , apa r ty s houl d be g i v en atl easto n e o p p o rtu n i ty t o am en d b efo re th e d i stri ctco u rtd i sm i sses a com pl ai ntw i th p re

j ud i ce . B ry antv. D up re e, 25 2 F . 3d 11 61 , 11 63 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). H ow ever , the courtneed no t“ al l ow an am endm ent(1) w here there has been un du e del ay , bad fai th, di l at ory m ot i ve, or re peat ed fa i l ure t o cure de f i c i e nc i e s by a m e ndm e nt s pr e vi ous l y a l l ow e d; ( 2) w he r e a l l ow i ng a m e ndm e nt w oul d c a us e undue pr e

j udi c e t o the oppos i ng pa r ty ; or( 3) w he r e a m e ndm e nt w o u ld b e f

u tile .” I d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o u n d th a t ( 1 ) R o g e r s a n d M y le tt h a d d is p la y e d b a d f a ith an d (2 ) am en d m en tw o u l d h av e b een fu t i l e. W e fi n d n o erro r, m u ch l ess an ab u se of di s c r e t i on, i n the rul i ng. 3jurisdiction, the district court noted that dismissals on that ground w erewithout prejudice. The

court found, how ever , that, with reg ard to the de fenda nts over whom it had per sonal jurisdiction, the Personal Jurisdiction Defenda nts, the claims ag ainst them weremeritless. The c ourt thus conclude d that it was appropriate to dismiss the claims ag ainst those defendants with prejudice . Putti ngthis conclusion aside, bec ause noneof the c omplaint’s claims have merit, we a ffirm the dis tric t c ourt ’saltern ativ eho ldingwith re g ard to t hePers on al Jurisdic tio n D e fendants . 16 V. F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 11 autho ri ze s adi stri ctcourtt o i m po se a s a nc t i on w he n apa r ty pr e s e nt s ac l a i m tha ti s not“ w a rr a nt e d by e xi s t i ng l a w orby a non fr i vo l ou s a rgum entfor the ext ensi on , m od i fi ca t i on , or re vers al of exi st i ng l aw o rth e e s tab lis h m e n t o f

n e w la w .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 1 ( c ) , ( b ) . F u r th e rm o r e , ap a r ty m ustce rt i fythat“ the al l egat i on s a nd other f ac tual cont ent i on s have e vi dent i ary supp ortor, i f s peci fi ca l l y s o i dent i fi ed, ar e l i kel y t o h ave e vi dent i ary s up po rtaf t er ar e a s o n ab l e o p p o r tu n i ty f o rf u r th e ri n v e s t i g a t i o n o rd i s c o v e ry . ” Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 1 1 ( b ) . I n d e te rm in in g w h e th e rs a n c tio n s a r e ap p r o p r ia te , ac o u r t m u s t a s k , f ir s t,

“ w he the rthe pa r t i e s c l a i m s a r e obj e c t i ve l y f r i vol ous , ” a nd, s e c ond, “ w he the rthe pers on w ho si gn ed the pl ea di ng s s ho ul d h ave been aw ar e thatthey w er e f ri vo l ou s. ” B y rn e v . N e z h a t, 2 6 1 F .3 d 1 0 7 5 , 1 1 0 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . R oge r s a nd M y l e ttpr ovi de d no s uppor tf orthe i ra l l e ga t i on tha tK oz l ow s ki had m i ni m um cont ac t s w i th F l ori da and, m oreover, had n ot i ce thathe l ac ked c ont a c t s w i th the s t a t e . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d no abus e of d is c r e tio n in im p o s in g th e $ 5 0 0 f in e a s aR u le 1 1 s a n c tio n .17 V I.

“ A n aw ar d o f a tt orney’ s f ee s i s notfi nal un t i l the am ou nti s det erm i ned. ” Int er st at e P i pe M ai nt enance, Inc. v. F M C C orp. , 77 5 F . 2d 14 95 , 14 97 (11th C i r. 1985) . I n tha tourj ur i s di c t i on i s l i m i t e d t o the r e vi e w of f i na l or de r s , a n a w a r d of a tto rn e y s f

e e s is n o t ap p e a lab le u n til th e a m o u n t o f th e a w a r d is d e te rm in e d . I d . W he n the a w a r d be c om e s f i na l , a n appe a l m a y be t a ke n. S e e i d. T he a m ountof

a tt orne y s ’ f

e e s w a s noti nc l ude d i n the di s pos i t i ve or de rnow b ef o re u s. W e th er ef

o re lack ju risd icti o n in th is ap p ea l t o re v iew th e c o u rt’s d e c is io n to a w a r d f

e e s . A F F I R M E D , in p a r t; D I S M I S S E D , in p a r t.