FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T FEB 24, 201 1 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 11 15 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 23 06 6- CV-UU MOLINOS VALLE DE L CIBAO, C. po r A., a co rp or at io n o f th e Dom in ic anRep ub li c, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us OSCAR R. LAMA, CARLOS LAMA-SELIM AN, OSCAR LAMA-S ELIMAN, in di vi du al s res id in g i n t he st at e o f Fl or id a, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 9- 12 58 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 23 06 6- CV-UU MOLINOS VALLE DE L CIBAO, C. po r A., a co rp or at io n o f th e Dom in ic anRep ub li c, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,ve rs us

OSCAR R. LAMA, CARLOS LAMA-SELIM AN, OSCAR LAMA-S ELIMAN, in di vi du al s res id in g i n t he st at e o f Fl or id a, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 24 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT andCOX, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d KORM AN, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e: Thi s ca se st em s fr om

a fo rei gn curren cy

ex ch an ge ag reem en t. The pl ai nt iff , a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, b ou gh t Un it edSta te s d ol lars fro m th e d efen da nt s, thr ee in di vi du al s—two of wh om ittu rn s o utare ci ti zen s o f th e Dom in ic anRep ub li c—i n ex ch an ge forDom in ic anpe so s. Th e p la in ti ff p ai d a ndth e d efen da nt s d idno t; th e pl ai nt iff s s ue d. Whatwas o th erwi se a si m pl e st at e la w bre ach of c on tra ctact io n

Hono rable Edwar d R. K orman, Uni te d St at es Dis tr ic t J udge fo r t he E ast ern Di stri ctof New * York, si tt ing by des ignat ion . 2be cam e m

uc h m or e co m

pl ic at edby ina rtf

ul lawyerin g a ndth e al lu re o f tr eb le da m ag es . The de fen da nt s ch al le ng edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on at l at e jun ctur es —o n th e ev e o f tr ia l fo r on e th eo ry , onap pe al foran ot he r—r eg ard in g i ss ue s the y co ul d ha ve for es eenwhen th ey

rece iv edth e co m

pl ai ntov er thr ee years ag o. Th e pl ai nt iff , aft er b ei ng ful ly com

pe ns at edun de r it s b reac h o f co nt ractth eo ry , co nt es ts th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f it s s ta tu to ry worthl es s ch eckcla im , Fla . St at . § 6 8.0 65 . Und er b oth c la im s the pl ai nt iff wou ldrece iv e th e sa m e co m pe ns at ory da m ag es ; the di sm is se d c la im , ho wev er, wo ul d p ro vi de pre va il in g pl ai nt iff s wi th tre bl e d am ag es . Thi s o pi ni on is org an iz edas f ol lo ws. Part I l ay s o utth e fac ts of t he cas e an d i ts pro cedur al hi st ory . PartII d is cu ss es th e th ree i ss ue s re la te d t o s ub ject
m at te r juri sd ic ti on , andco nc lu de s tha t we h av e juri sd ic ti on to he ar the m eri ts arg um en ts reg ard in g o ne de fen da nt . PartIII ad dr es se s the pl ai nt iff’s two arg um en ts reg ard in g p ie rci ng th e co rp or at e v ei l— a n eces sa ry co m po ne ntfor

th e worth le ss ch eckcla im . PartIV ad dr es se s the rem ai ni ng de fen dant ’s two arg um en ts : tha t the di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y adm it te d c omm

un ic at io ns m ad e du rin g s et tl em en t n eg ot ia ti on s; an d t ha t the re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s ho w

3th atth e curren cy bro ke r who ne go ti at edth e co nt ractwas t he de fen da nt ’s age nt . PartV con cl ud es . I. A. Thi s ca se st em s fr om

a Fo rei gn Curren cy

Exch an ge Agre em en t (“ th e Co nt ract ”) b etweenth e p la in ti ff, Mo li no s Val le Del Ci ba o, C. p orA. (“ Mo li no s” ), an d t he th ree d efen da nt s (c ol le ct iv el y , th e “ Lam as ”), Osc ar R. Lam a (“ Osc ar Sr.” ) an d h is two so ns , Carl os Lam a Sel im an(“ Carl os ”) an d Os car Lam a Sel im an (“ Osc ar J r.”). Mo li no s i s a Do m in ic anco rp or at io n. Th e Lam as th em se lv es res id e in Flo rid a. Fact s b ro ug htforwardinsupp le m en ta l b rie fin g t o t hi s co urt s ho w th at Osc ar Sr. i s a dua l ci ti zenof t he Uni te d S ta te s an d t he Dom in ic anRep ub li c, bu t th atCarl os an d Os car J r. are Do m in ic ancit iz en s wo rk in g i n t he Uni te d S ta te s o n no n- im mig ran t wo rk er v is as . Mo li no s o pe rat es a fl ou r m il l, s el li ng flo urto th e Dom in ic anm ark et , for whi chitrece iv es Dom in ic anpe so s. It s s up pl ie rs , ho wev er, are oft enAm eri can co m pa ni es ; M ol in os m

us t p ay th ei r bi ll s i n Un it edSta te s d ol la rs . To ge t the be st ex ch an ge rat e fo r it s p es os , Mo li no s o fte n h ire s cu rren cy bro ke rs to fin d a nd co nt ractwith s el le rs of Un it edSta te s d ol la rs .

4InJu ne 20 04 , Mo li no s n eed edto ex ch an ge ap pr ox im at el y 28 m il li on pe so s fo r Uni te d S ta te s d ol lars to pa y it s s up pl ie rs . It h ire d acurren cy bro ke r nam ed Mar ci a Gab rie laBo nn el ly to fi ndth e b es t ra te . To th aten d, s he co nt act edJu an Meji a, an ot he r cu rren cy

bro ke r. One o f Meji a’s cl ie nt s, the Lam a fam il y , was lo ok in g t o s el l Un it edSta te s d ol la rs . Mejia c on ta ct edon e o f th e Lam as , Carl os , who ap pr ov edth e Co nt ract : 2 8 m il li on Dom in ic anPes os for$6 36 ,59 6.0 0. Mo li no s co m

pl et edit s s id e o f th e Co nt ract ; i t draft edch eck s wo rth 28 m il li on pe so s an d g av e th em to Bo nn el ly, who pa ss edth em on to Mejia . The

1 ch eck s wer e n ot , ho wev er, m ad e p ay ab le to an y m em be r of th e Lam as fam il y ; the y were p ay ab le to ot he r in di vi du al s an d a no th er co rp or at io n c on tro ll edby the Lam as . Mejia t es ti fie d a t tria l tha t thi s arran ge m en t was no rm al forhi s tra ns act io ns on be ha lf o f th e Lam as . The family oft enne ed edin st an t l iqui di ty and th eref or e o fte n re qu es te d t ha t ch eck s b e m ad e p ay ab le to th ei r m es se ng ers , who wou ldth encas h t he ch eck s o n t he ir trip ba ckto th e Lam as ’ of fic e. The c he ck s were h on or edan d t he Lam as rece iv edth ei r pe so s. Inreturn, M ol in os rece iv eda se rie s o f ch eck s t ot al in g $ 63 6,5 96 .00 . Thes e ch eck s wer e drawnfro m

th e acc ou nt s o f two Dom in ic anco rp or at io ns , Chi ps te k,
T he c hec ks were notdr af te d f rom Mol ino s’ s ba nk acco unt ; t hey wer e dr af te d onbeh al f o f 1 Agronomica Do n Pe dro , an oth er corpor at ion “r el at ed t o M oli nos .” E ar ly in the li ti gatio n, t he L amas cl ai m ed t hatMo li nos di d no t h ave st and ing to br ing th is cl ai m bec aus e i t d id notdr af

t t he c hec ks in que st ion . T he d is tr ic t c ourt r ej ect ed t his ar gum entandth e La m as do n ot ra is e i t o n ap pea l. 5S.A. (“ Ch ip st ek ”) an d Ex pe rte k, S.A. (“ Exp ert ek ”), an d s ig ne d b y eit he r Car lo s o r Osc ar J r. in th ei r cap aci ti es as d ire ct or s o f Ch ip st ekan d Ex pe rte k. Bo th Ch ip st ek an d Ex pe rte k a re wh ol ly-own edsubs id ia rie s o f Glo ba lt ek , S.A. (“ Glo ba lt ek ”). 2 Glo ba lt ekis own edby O RLS In te rn at io na l Ho ld in gs , whi chis intu rnown edby L&S Co rp or at io n; m em

be rs of t he Lam a fam il y , in cl ud in g Os car S r., Carl os , and Osc ar J r., ownL&S Co rp or at io n. Th e Lam as —Os car S r., Carl os , andOsca r Jr .—ar e b oa rdm em

be rs of C hi ps te k a ndExp ert ek , bu t d o n otownth es e en ti ti es di rect ly.

I t i s un cl earif

th is st at ement i s e nti re ly true. T he d is tr ic t c our t n ote d co nfu si on i n the r eco rd as 2 to thi s po int . Or deron De fs .’ M ots . fo r J . as a M at te r o f La w 2 n.1 . I n the d is tr ic t c our t, M oli nos ass erte d thatChi pst ek is 99.4 per cen t o wned by Globa lt ek. Pl.’ s M em. Opp’n t o Def s.’ Mo t. f or J . as a Ma tt erof Law, o r, i n the Al te rna ti ve, Mot . New T ri al orRemittur 13–1 4 n.9 . I t i s un cl earwho o wns t he re m ai nin g 0.6 per cen t. In i ts re ply br ie f, M oli nos as ser ts th atOsc arSr. “was nota s har eho lde r o f Glob al te k, Chips te k or Exp erte k.” Appel la nt’ s Re ply Br. 15. But Osca r Sr .’s dep osi ti on t est imony re ad attr ia l i ndi cat es tha t h e own s ato ken amount o f s toc k, though hi s t est imony doe s no t i ndi cat e ho w m uch . Forth e pu rpo ses of

th is opi nio n, we wil l t re atGlo bal te k as i f i t o wned 100 per cen t o f Ch ips te k’s st ock andignor e Os carSr. ’s to ken int er est . W e f eel comfortable doi ng thi s f or two re aso ns. Fir st , th is is sue is onl y poten ti al ly re le vant r egardi ng Mol ino s’ s a tt empt to pi er ce Chip st ek’s c orp ora te veil . But Mo li nos ’s br ie f t o this cou rtonl y argues t hatOsc arSr. sho uldbe li abl e be cau se he i s adi re ct or of the se compani es. Appe ll ant ’s Repl y Br. 10 ( “T he L aw Doe s NotRequ ir e Owne rs hip , itis Suf fi ci entth atth e Lamas wer e Di re ct ors of

Chi pst ek and E xpe rt ek”). Mo li nos has th er ef ore wai ved any ar gum entth at Osca r Sr .’s to ken st ock owner shi p sh oul d f act or int o ou r e valuat ion of Mo li nos ’s veil pi er ci ng argum ent . Sec ond, a b ri ef

in vesti gatio n i nto Flo ri da c ase la w suggests th atonl y contr oll ing orm aj ori ty sha re hol der s may

be li abl e f

or the cor por at ion ’s deb ts und era veil pi er ci ng theo ry. See , e.g., Se m ino le Boat yard, Inc. v. Chri st oph, 715 So. 2 d 98 7, 98 9 ( Fla . 4t h Di st . Ct. App. 1 998) (“ I f t he s ta te ’s la w al lows the deb torcor

por at ion to as ser t acl ai m again sta c ontrol li ng shar eho lde r t o pi er ce it s owncorpor at e veil , the n the c la im is p rop erty of the es ta te .” ( emphasi s a dde d) (c it at ion s omitt ed) ); Estudi os, Pro yectos e Inversi one s de Cent ro Am er ic a, S. A. v. Swiss Bank Corp., 5 07 So . 2d 1119 , 112 0 ( Fla . 3d Dis t. Ct . App. 1987 ) ( “A co rpo ra ti on’ s veil wil l b e pi er cedwher e t he c orp ora ti on’ s c ontrol li ng shar eho lde r f ormed or use d the c orp ora ti on t o de fr audcr edi tor s by evadi ng liabil it y for p re exi st ing obl igati ons .” ( emphasi s add ed) ). Underth is pr inc ipl e, e ven if Osc arSr. is a n om ina l s har eho lde r i n ei the r Ch ips te k or Exp erte k, onl y Global te k, which owns 99 p er cen t o f t he c om pan ie s, wo uldbe el igibl e f or veil pie rc ing. 6Altho ug h C hi ps te k a ndExp ert ekwrot e th es e ch eck s, M ol in os ’s tri al

te st im on y su gg es ts th atth es e co rp or at io ns were n otpa rti es to th e Co nt ract . Bo nn el ly w as fam il ia r with t he Lam as bu t h adne ve r be fo re d on e b us in es s wi th th es e en ti ti es . Rath er, s he tes ti fie d t ha t the Lam as ha d ago odrep ut at io n— “ th ey were re sp on si bl e m or al ly also an d s ol ve nt ”—i n t he bu si ne ss co m m un it y an d s he ha d c on su m

m at edsi m il ar cu rren cy

ag reem en ts with t he Lam as on be ha lf o f ro ug hl y ten to twel ve of h er o th er cl ie nt s. Mo li no s’s Gen eral Man ag er, Rube n Reynos o, wh o app ro ve d t he de al on Mo li no s’s b eh al f, li ke wis e b el ie ve d tha t the Lam as were Mo li no s’s co nt ractua l co un te r-p arty ; h e h adne ve r he ardof C hi ps te k orExp ert ek . The Lam as ’ rep ut at io n p la y eda ro le inhi s ap pr ov al of the Co nt ract . Thi s tru stwas m is pl aced ; the ch eck s b ou nc ed . Mol in os ’s ban k i nf orm ed Mo li no s tha t the acco un ts on whi chth e ch eck s wer e drawneit he r were o ve rdrawn orha d b eenclo se d. W an ti ng to res ol ve th is is su e, Mo li no s’s re pr es en ta ti ve s m etwith t he Lam as on sev eral oc cas io ns be twee n Au gu stan d Oct ob er 2 00 4. Aton e o f th es e m eet in gs , Osca r Sr. ackno wled ge d t ha t h is fam il y , hi m se lf i nc lu de d, was res po ns ib le forth e su m

of t he bo un cedch eck s. Carl os als o a ckno wled ge d t ha t 3
T his st at ement c om es fr om Me j ia ’s tr ia l t est imony . Al tho ugh itis unc le arwhenOsc arSr. sa id 3 thi s t o M ej ia , th e r eac ti on o f t he L amas’ c ouns el suggests th atitwas dur ing one of th ese negoti at ion m eet ings; th e La m as obj ect ed t o i ts ent ry unde r Fe d. R. Evid . 408 , whi ch gene ra ll y bars admiss ion of comm uni cat ion s duri ng set tl ement ne gotia ti ons . 7hi s fa m il y

—h e, Osc ar Sr., an d Os car J r.—was res po ns ib le for th e d eb t. At t he co nc lu si on of t he Octo be r 20 04 m eet in g, Carlo s s ig ne d aset tl em en t ag reem en t ackno wled gi ng pe rs on al li ab il ity forpa rt o f th e d eb t an d s ig ne d aco rres po nd in g pr om is so ry

no te . The p art ie s m etag ai n i n 2 00 6 t o d is cu ss th e d eb t, wh ic h t he 4 Lam as ha d n oty etpa id . OscarSr. at te nd edth atm eet in g a nddi d n otde ny his pe rs on al li ab il ity

un de r th e Co nt ract . Mo li no s n ev er re cei ve d i ts m on ey . Its supp li ers , ho wev er, s ti ll requi red pa ym en t. Sev eral of i ts ch eck s t o t he se supp li ers als o b ou nc ed ; the y were i ss ue d in rel ianc e o n t he av ai labi li ty of fu nd s u nd er the Co nt ract . To co ve r it s co st s, Mo li no s h adto bo rro w m on ey , in cu rri ng in te res t. B.

T he a greement c overednotonl y a porti on o f t he d ebtund erth e Con tr act , butal so r el eas ed 4 cl ai m s pe ndi ng in c ourt i n the Do m ini canRepubli c overse par at e t ra nsa ct ion s r el at ed t o ba d ch ecks. It is unc le arto whatext entth e ne gotia ti ons des cr ibe d ab ove covere d bo th grounds —t he d ebtandth e Dom ini canRepubli c l it igati on. T he d is tr ic t c ourt’ s or deradmitt ing th ese di scu ssi ons inevide nce sugg est s t hatitm ade a f

ind ing th atth e La m as’ admiss ion s of li abi li ty were notm ade dur ing se tt le m ent negoti at ion s s urr ound ing th e Domini canRepubli c l it igati on; th e c our t p erm it te d the j ury to hear t hes e st at ements butbarre d ad m is si on o f “ set tl ement ne gotia ti ons anddoc um ent at ion re gardi ng the [Domini canRepubli c] Pro cee din g.” T he s ettl ement a greement a ls o pr ovideda f orum se le ct ion cl aus e t hatre qui re s a ll li ti gatio n re gardi ng the Cont ra ctto occ ur in the Dom ini canRepubli c. T he L amas di d no t s eek to enf orc e t his cl aus e i n the d is tr ic t c ourt a nd d o no t r ai se the is sue on appe al . At t ri al , th e Lam as’ cou nse l r ai sedfo r t he f ir stti m e adef

ens e of ac cor d an d sa ti sf

act ionbas ed o n thi s s et tl ement a greement. T he d is tr ic t c ourt r ef use d t o he arevide nce on t he i ssu e be cau se the Lamas never ple d the d ef

ens e i n thei r a nswe r. T hey do n ot app eal th is ru li ng, eit her . 8Mo li no s b ro ug htth is su itag ai ns t the Lam as inNov em be r 20 07 inth e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a. The am en de d 5
co m pl ai ntco nt ai ne d s ix co un ts . Cou ntI al le ge d t ha t the Lam as bre ach edth e 6 Co nt ract . Cou nt s II an d II I al le ge d fr au d a ndne gl ig en t m is rep res en ta ti on , bu t were d is m is se d a t the pl ead in g s ta ge an d a re n otch al le ng edhe re. Co un t IV al le ge d awort hl es s ch eckcla im un de r Fl a. St at . § 6 8.0 65 an d s ou gh t l iabi li ty di rect ly agai ns t the Lam as un de r th e th eo ry th atbe cau se Ch ip st ekan d Ex pe rte k, th e en ti ti es th atis su edth e worth le ss ch eck s, were th e al te r eg os of t he Lam as , th e co urt s ho ul d p ie rce t he co rp or at e v ei l. Thi s co un t i s n ot ab le be cau se itcarr ie s with i t the po ss ib il it y

of t reb le dam ag es . Fla. St at . § 6 8.0 65 (1 ). Cou ntV all eg ed 7
a v io la ti on of t he Flo rid a Dece pt iv e an d Un fai r Trad e Pra ct ic es Act (“ FDUTPA”), Fl a. St at . § 5 01 .20 4( 1) . Cou ntVI all eg edun jus t en ric hm en t, an alt ern at iv e th eo ry if t he co urt d idno t fi ndanex pr es s co nt ractto su st ai n C ou ntI. Reg ard in g ju ris di ct io n, M ol in os cit eddi ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2( a). Mo li no s al le ge d t ha t i t was a Dom in ic ancit iz enan d t ha t the Lam as
T he c ase was hea rd bef

ore Dis tr ic t J udge Urs ulaUngaro. T he c ase was in it ia ll y assi gned to 5 Dis tr ic t J udge Patri ci a A. Se it z, but wa s t ra nsf erre d t o J udge Ungaro whenJ udge Sei tz re cus ed o n Dece m ber3, 2 007. M oli nos fi le d hi s i nit ia l c om pla inton No vem

ber20, 2007 , butfi le d anamended complai nt on 6 J anu ary 24, 200 8. At ora l a rgum ent , M oli nos ’s cou nse l c onc ede d thatth e r eas on i t appe al ed t he d is tr ic t c our t’ s 7 re j ect ion of Coun t IV was th e pr osp ectof tr ebl e da m ages.

9were “ res id en ts of F lo rid a.” The Lam as di d n otco nt es t d iv ers it y juri sd ic ti on ; the ir an swe r ackno wled ge d t ha t the y were “ do m ic il ed ” inFlo rid a. Ove r th e n ex t m on th s, the Lam as sev eral ti m es m ov edth e co urt t o d is m is s th e cas e. They m ov edto di sm is s the am en de d c om pl ai nton Feb ru ary 7, 2 00 8 fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

forrel ie f un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ). 8 The co urt g ran te d t hi s m ot io n i n p artan d d is m is se d C ou nt s II an d II I, bu t d en ie d th e res t o f th e m ot io n. OnAug us t 2 5, 2 00 8, the Lam as m ov edforjud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs un de r Ru le 12 (c); th e co urt d en ie d t hi s m ot io n. Th e Lam as als o m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t u nd er Ru le 56 on all cla im s o n Au gu st26 , 20 08 ; thi s m ot io n was als o d en ie d. The Lam as fil eda m ot io n i n l im in e o n Oct ob er 3 , 20 08 . Pert in en t t o t hi s ap pe al , th e m ot io n s ou gh t t o e xc lu de th e p ro m is so ry no te si gn edby Carlo s an d an y st at em en ts m ad e dur in g t he pu rp orte d s et tl em en t d is cu ss io ns du rin g 2 00 4 a nd 20 06 . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he m ot io n. Ithe ldth at , bec au se th e Lam as ne ve r de ni edeit he r th e v al id it y or t he am ou ntof M ol in os ’s cla im du rin g t ho se ne go ti at io ns , th e n eg ot ia ti on s wer e n otco ve redby Feder al Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 08 .
T he L amas al so mov ed t o di smiss t he a m end ed c om pla intfo r i nsu ff

ic ie nt ser vice o f p roc ess 8 unde r Ru le 12( b)( 5) andfo r f oru m noncon viens . T he d is tr ic t c ourt d eni ed t he L amas’ motio n onth ese grounds as wel l. T his opi nio n r ef

er enc es two set s of

ru le s: th e Fe der al Rul es of Civil Pro cedure andth e Fe der al Rule s of Eviden ce. W e wi ll re fe r t o an y Feder al Rul e of Civil Pro cedure si m

ply as a “ Rule ” a nd a ny Fede ra l Ru le of

Eviden ce as an “ Evidenc e Rul e.” 10At tria l, the co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t the ev id en ce was no t b ei ng off eredto sh ow l iabi li ty—i.e., tha t the Lam as ’ co nduc t b reac he d t he co ntract—b utrathe r to sh ow tha t the Lam as , as o pp os edto Ch ip st ekor Ex pe rte k, wer e Mo li no s’s tru e co un te r-p art ie s. On J anua ry

20 , 20 09 , th e d ay

be fo re the tri al be ga n, the Lam as m ov edto di sm is s the cas e o n t wo g ro un ds : (1 ) fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) be cau se all pa rti es were al ie ns ; an d (2 ) fo r fai lu re t o jo in an in di sp en sabl e p arty

un de r Ru le 12 (b )(7 ). They argu edth at , bec au se Ch ip st ekan d Exp ert ekis su edth e ch eck s an d wer e th eref or e th e “pr im ary act or s,” t he ir Dom in ic ancit iz en sh ip sh ou ldbe im pu te d t o t he Lam as , th ereb y de st ro y in g al ie na ge juri sd ic ti onun de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2( a)(2 ) be cau se Mo li no s, anali en , wou ldbe su in g t he Lam as , als o a li en s. Inth e al te rn at iv e, th ey arg ue d t ha t Ch ip st ekan d Expe rte k wer e in di sp en sabl e p art ie s u nd er Ru le 19 an d t ha t the co urt m us t d is m is s the cas e und er Ru le 12 (b )(7 ) be cau se th ey were n otjoi ne d. Th e co urt d el ay edrul in g o n thi s m ot io n u nt il aft er tria l an d d en ie d i t o n F eb ru ary 3, 20 09 . The jury tri al be ga n o n J anua ry 21 , 20 09 an d fe atur edth ree d ay s o f te st im on y . At th e cl os e o f bo th th e p la in ti ff’s an d t he ir o wn ca se s, the Lam as m ov edforjud gm en t as a m at te r of law u nd er Ru le 50 , cit in g i ns uf fic ie ntev id en ce 11on all cla im s. Th e co urt g ran te d t he m ot io n i n p art . It d is m is se d t he Co un t IV

worth le ss ch eckcla im

ag ai ns t al l d efen da nt s b ecau se Mo li no s d idno t p utforward ev id en ce t o p ie rce t he co rp or at e v ei l o f ei th er Ch ip st ekor Ex pe rte k u nd er an alt er eg o t he ory . It al so refu se d t o c on si de r Mo li no s’s al te rn at iv e arg um en t fo r Co un t IV—t ha t Ch ip st ekan d Ex pe rte k wer e th e Lam as ’ ag en ts —b ecau se th e co urt fo un d th atMo li no s h adne ve r be fo re ra is edth atth eo ry . The co urt al so di sm is se d t he Co un t V FDUTPA cl ai m ag ai ns t Os car S r. be cau se th ere was no ev id en ce tha t h e pl ay edan y

rol e inth e is su an ce o f th e ch eck s. The co urt the n s ub m it te d t o t he jury th e Co un t I b reac h o f co nt ractcla im an d C ou ntVI un

jus t en ric hm en t cl ai m

ag ai ns t al l d efen da nt s, an d t he Co un t V FDUPTA cla im

ag ai ns t Ca rlo s an d Os car J r. The jury fou ndforMo li no s an d award ed$1 .4 m il li onon Co un t I and$6 36 ,59 6.0 0 o n C ou ntV. The d is tri ctco urt subs eque nt ly ent ereda jud gm en t fo r th atam ou nt , ho ld in g a ll de fen da nt s jo in tl y an d s ev eral ly liab le forth e d am ag es . Sh ortl y aft er the ve rd ic t, the Lam as ag ai n m ov edforjud gm en t as a m at te r of la w un de r Ru le 50 an d, al te rn at iv el y , fora ne w tri al un de r Ru le 59 . They fir st arg ue d t ha t the re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s ho w th atMejiawas Os car S r.’s ag en t, ei th er ac tu al or app aren t. The di st ric t co urt re jecte d t hi s ar gu m en t, fi nd in g th atth ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s ho w th atOscar Sr. rat ifi edMejia ’s act s. Th e 12di st ric t co urt re jecte d the Lam as ’ ot he r arg um en ts an d a ll owe d t he ve rd ic t t o s ta nd , bu t m od ifi edth e jud gm en t t o re fle ctMo li no s’s ac tu al da m ag es , $7 74 ,10 6.8 8, an d ne t p re-ju dg m en t i nt eres t o f $3 27 ,32 2.3 3. 9 Bo th pa rti es ap pe al ed . Mol in os ap pe al edth e d is m is sa l o f it s C ou ntIV worth le ss ch eckcla im . The Lam as co nt es te d t he subjec t m atte r juri sd ic ti on rul in g, ch al le ng edth e co urt’s ad m is si on of the purp orte d s ettl em en t n eg ot ia ti on s, ar gu ed th atMejiawas n otau th or iz edto bi ndth e Lam as un de r Co un t I, an d a rg ue d t ha t Carl os an d Os car J r. were n otli ab le un de r th e FDUPTA un de r Co un t V. At o ral arg um en t, the pa ne l ra is edco nc ern s re gard in g s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on be cau se itap pe aredth atCarl os an d Os car J r. m ig htno t b e Uni te d St at es cit iz en s. Th e p art ie s s ub m it te d s up pl em en ta l b rie fs on th is is su e. The Lam as pre se nt edco pi es of n on -immig ran t wo rk er v is as forbo thCarl os an d Os car Jr ., as wel l as do cu m en ta ti on pro vi ng th atOsca r Sr. i s a dua l ci ti zenof t he Uni te d St at es an d t he Dom in ic anRep ub li c. Init s s up pl em en ta l re pl y bri ef, Mo li no s co nc ed edth atCarl os an d Os car J r. are n otUni te d S ta te s ci ti zen s an d t he refo re n ot pr op er p art ie s i n adi ve rs it y act io n b ro ug htby a fore ig n c or po rat io n (M ol in os ). 1 0

M oli nos agree d wi th the di st ri ctcou rt ’s re - ass ess ed d amag es anddoe s no t c hal le nge the m on 9 app eal . M oli nos in it ia ll y clai m ed, in it s s uppl emental br ie fi ng to t his cou rt , th atCar los andOsc arJ r.

1 0 wer e pe rmanentre si den ts of th e Uni te d St at es andsho uldbe tr eat ed, fordi versi ty purpos es, as ci ti zens of Flo ri da u nde r 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 32( a) , whi ch s ta te s: “Fo r t he p urp ose s of th is se ct ion , . . . an al ie n ad m it te d 13It a sk edth e co urt t o d is m is s C arl os an d Os car J r. fro m th e cas e an d i m

po se th e fu ll jud gm en t s ol el y

ag ai ns t Os car S r. II. Whe th er thi s co urt h as subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on is anis su e o f la w th atwe rev ie w de n ov o. Mi cco su ke e Trib e o f In di an s o f Fl a. v. Un it edSta te s, 6 19 F.3d 12 86 , 12 88 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The p art ie s n ow ag ree tha t Ca rlo s an d Os car J r. are no t p ro pe r pa rti es be cau se th ey are Do min ic ancit iz en s; th ei r pr es en ce d es tro y s fu ll di ve rs it y

un de r al ie na ge juri sd ic ti on . W e m us t the refo re v acat e th e jud gm en t as itpe rta in s t o the m . Osc ar Sr.’s s ta tu s i n t hi s ca se rem ai ns co nt es te d. Th e Lam as rai se th ree po ss ib le ba rs to th is co urt’s s ub ject m atte r juri sd ic ti on ov er the cas e as itpe rta in s to Osca r Sr. Fi rs t, the y

cla im th atOsca r Sr. i s an im

pr op er p arty

un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2( a)(2 ) ei th er b ecau se he is a du al cit iz enor b ecau se he is do m ic il edab ro ad . Seco nd , bec au se Carl os an d Os car J r. are Do m in ic ancit iz en s, the Lam as arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt n ev er h adjuri sd ic ti on to he ar thi s ca se an d t ha t we m us t th eref or e v acat e th e jud gm en t ag ai ns t Os car S r. an d d is m is s the en ti re ca se . Thir d,

to the Uni te d St at es forper m ane nt re si den ce sha ll be dee m ed aci ti zen of th e St at e i n whi ch s uch al ie n i s domicil ed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a ). Car los ’s andOsc ar J r.’ s no n- immigran t wo rker vis as demonstra te th at the y are n ot perm ane nt re si den ts ; p erm ane nt re si den t a li ens woul d no t n eedvisas to work in the Un it ed Sta te s. M oli nos app ar ent ly acc ept ed thes e do cuments as aut hen ti c a nd aban done d i ts ar gum entto th e con tr ary. 14th e Lam as arg ue th atwe sh ou ldim pu te th e Dom in ic ancit iz en sh ip of C hi ps te k a nd Exp ert ekto th e Lam as —d es tro y in g d iv ers it y —b ecau se Ch ip st ekan d Ex pe rte k were the real act or s i n t hi s ca se . W e ad dr es s ea charg um en t i n turn. A. Ali en ag e juri sd ic ti on is a fo rm of d iv ers it y

juri sd ic ti on un de r whi chfed eral co urts m ay

he ar ca se s b etween“ ci ti zen s o f a St at e an d c it iz en s o r subjec ts of a fo rei gnst at e.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 32 (a)( 2) . Like th e co m pl et e d iv ers it y

rul e in cas es be twee n c it iz en s o f di ffer en t s ta te s, s ee St rawb rid ge v. Curti ss , 7 U.S. (3 Cran ch ) 26 7, 2 67 , 2 L. Ed. 4 35 (18 06 ), al ie na ge juri sd ic ti onpro hi bi ts anali enfro m su in g an ot he r al ie n i n fe de ral co urt u nl es s the su itin cl ud es Uni te d S ta te s ci ti zen s as pl ai nt iff s an d d efen dant s, Ir ao la& CIA, S.A. v. Ki m be rly-Cla rkCo rp ., 23 2 F .3d 85 4, 8 60 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). It i s the bu rd enof t he pa rty seek in g fe de ral juri sd ic ti on to de m on st rat e th atdi ve rs it y ex is ts by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. McC ormic k v . Aderho lt , 29 3 F .3d12 54 , 12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (ci ti ng Sco gg in s v . Po ll oc k, 7 27 F.2d10 25 , 10 26 (11 th Cir . 19 84 )). Inth is cas e, th e p la in ti ff, Mo li no s, i s a Do m in ic anco rp or at io n. Th e p art ie s no w agr ee tha t two o f th e th ree c o- de fen da nt s, Os car J r. an d C arl os , are ci ti zen s o f th e Dom in ic anRep ub li c an d t he refo re are no t p ro pe r pa rti es inth is di ve rs it y act io n. 15Osc ar Sr., the th irdde fen da nt , is a du al cit iz enof t he Uni te d S ta te s an d t he

Dom in ic anRep ub li c. Mo li no s co nt en ds th atdu al cit iz en s ar e co ns id eredto be Uni te d S ta te s ci ti zen s fo r di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on . Oscar

Sr. arg ue s tha t h is Dom in ic ancit iz en sh ip de feat s d iv ers it y : an ali enpl ai nt iff wou ldbe su in g an a li en de fen da nt . In the alt ern at iv e, he arg ue s tha t h e was no t a c it iz enof F lo rid a. Reg ard in g Os car S r.’s fir starg um en t, thi s co urt h as no t ex pl ic it ly de te rm in edwhet he r al ie ns m ay su e in di vi du al s wh o a re dua l Un it edSta te s ci ti zen s un de r al ie na ge juri sd ic ti on . The co urts of app eal s d eci di ng th is is su e h av e un ifo rm ly hel d tha t, fo r di ve rs it y pu rp os es , cou rts sh ou ldco ns id er o nl y th e Uni te d St at es cit iz en sh ip of i nd iv idua ls who are dua l ci ti zen s. See , e.g., San ch ez v . Aero vi as De Mex ., S.A. De C.V., 59 0 F .3d10 27 , 10 28 n.1 (9t h C ir. 2 01 0) ; Fr et tSm ith v . Vant erp oo l, 5 11 F.3d39 6, 3 99 –4 00 (3dCir . 20 08 ); C ou ry v. Pro t, 8 5 F.3 d 2 44 , 25 0 (5 th Cir . 19 96 ); Ac ti on S.A. v. Mar c Ri ch& Co ., 95 1 F .2d50 4, 5 07 (2 d C ir. 1 99 1) ; Sa da t v . Mert es , 61 5 F .2d11 76 , 11 87 (7t h C ir. 1 98 0) ; s ee al so Von Dun se r v. Aro no ff, 9 15 F.2d10 71 , 10 73 –7 6 (6 th Cir . 19 90 ) (ag reei ng with S ad at ’s reas on in g, b utfin di ng no oc cas io n t o s o h ol d b ecau se th e fac ts reg ard in g t he pa rti es ’ do m ic il e were unc le ar an d re qu ire d re m an d) ; Las Vis ta s Vi ll as , S.A. v. Pet ers en , 77 8 F . Sup p. 1 20 2, 1 20 4 (M .D. Fla. 1 99 1) , aff’d 1 3 F .3d40 9 (1 1t h C ir. 19 94 ). 16W e are pe rs ua de d b y th e rea so ni ng of t he se co urts an d t he refo re h ol d t ha t an in di vi du al who is a du al cit iz enof t he Uni te d S ta te s an d a no th er n at io n i s o nl y a ci ti zenof t he Uni te d S ta te s fo r th e p ur po se s o f di ve rs ity

juri sd ic ti on un de r § 1 33 2( a). Osc ar Sr.’s Do m in ic ancit iz en sh ip th eref or e p os es no ba r to th is co urt’s juri sd ic ti on . Osc ar Sr.’s s eco ndco nt en ti on is th athe is do m ic il edinth e Dom in ic an Rep ub li c an d n otdo m ic il edin—an d, h en ce, n ota ci ti zenof— Fl or id a. He rai se s 1 1 th is po ss ib il it y

forth e fi rs t t im e inhi s s up pl em en ta l b rie fin g: “ [T]he rec or d ev id en ce d em on strat es th atMr. Lam a [Os car S r.] was li vi ng tem po rari ly at an ad dr es s i n F lo rid a, an d t ha t h e h adm ai nt ai ne d v ari ou s b us in es s i nt eres ts inth e Dom in ic anRep ub li c.” If tru e, th is ass ert io n wo ul d d efea t d iv ers it y juri sd ic ti on ; U.S. cit iz en s d om ic il edab ro adare n ei th er “ ci ti zen s o f a St at e” u nd er § 13 32 (a) n or

“ ci ti zen s o r subjec ts of afor ei gn st at e” an d t he refo re ar e n otpro pe r pa rti es to a di ve rs it y act io n i n fe de ral co urt. Newm an -Gree n, In c. v. Al fo nz o- Larrai n, 4 90

Osc arSr. doe s no t e xpl ic it ly ar gue tha t h e i s do m ic il ed i n the Do mini canRepubli c. Hi s 1 1 sup ple m ent al br ie fi ng dis cus ses th is to pic inonl y one se nte nce . I t s ays: “ [T ]he re cor d evide nce demonstra te s t hatMr . Lama [Os carSr. ] wa s l iving te m por ar il y at an addre ss in Flo ri da, andth athe had m ai nta ine d vari ous bus ine ss int er est s i n the Do m ini canRepubli c.” Bec aus e e veryone, wi th fe w exc ept ion s, h as a do m ic il e, t his exc erpt sugg est s t hathi s t rue domici le li es in the Dom ini canRepubli c. We al so n ote th at , und er

ournorm al wai ver ru le s, we woul d no t a ddr ess th is ar gum entbec aus e of it s c urs ory nature . Osc arSr. has pr ese nte d ne it herfa ct s no r l aw t o support t he s ent enc e qu ote d ab ove. However, thi s i ssu e r ai ses que st ion s of th is cou rt ’s j uri sdi ct ion , whi ch we m ustcon si derif

indoubt. 17U.S. 82 6, 8 28 –2 9, 1 09 S. Ct. 2 21 8, 2 22 1, 1 04 L. Ed. 2d89 3 (1 98 9) . Thu s, o ur

ne xtqu es ti on is whet he r Osc ar Sr. i s, i n fa ct , do m ic il edinth e St at e o f Fl or id a.

“ Fo r adul ts , do m ic il e is est ab li sh edby physic al pre se nc e in a pl ace i n co nn ect io n wi th a cert ai n s ta te of m in d c on cern in g o ne ’s in te ntto rem ai n t he re.” Mi ss . Ban d o f Ch oc ta w Ind ia ns v. Ho lyfiel d, 4 90 U.S. 30 , 48 , 10 9 S . Ct. 1 59 7, 16 08 , 10 4 L. Ed. 2 d 2 9 (1 98 9) ; s ee al so Suns eri v. Ma cro Cel lu la r Part ne rs , 41 2 F.3 d 1 24 7, 1 24 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Dom ic il e is no t s yno nym ou s wi th res id en ce; on e m ay tem po rari ly resi de inon e lo cat io n, yet ret ai n d om ic il e in a pr ev io us res id en ce. Alt ho ug h p hysic al ly pres en t i n t he curren t re si de nc e, th e p ers on do es no t i nt en d t o re m ai n i n t ha t s ta te in de fin it el y . The is su e o f Osc ar Sr.’s d om ic il e was ne ve r rai se d i n t he di st ric t co urt an d ou r rec or d o n t hi s t op ic is th eref or e le an . Wha t fa ct s ex is t, h owe ve r, sa ti sf y us th at Osc ar Sr. i s d om ic il edinFlo rid a. Fi rs t, Os car S r. m ai nt ai ne d t hr ou gh ou t the li ti ga ti onth athe is “ do m ic il ed withi n t he Cit y

of Av en tura, Fl or id a.” See Am . Ans wer an d Aff irmativ e Defen se s to Am . Com

pl . ¶ 5; Jo in t Pr etria l St ip ul at io n 6 . His a dm is si on inth e am en de d an swe r is no te worth y . Mol in os all eg edon ly tha t Os car S r. was a“ res id en t” of

18Fl or id a ; Os car S r.’s adm is si on ass ert edno t tha t h e was m erel y a “res id en t” bu t 1 2 th athe was d om ic il edinFlo rid a. Co urts ge ne ral ly giv e li tt le weig htto a party’ s pr of es si onof d om ic il e; th ey

do so be cau se th es e d ecl arat io ns are o fte n s el fse rv in g. 1 3E Ch arl es Alan Wrig ht , Arth urR. Mi ll er & EdwardH. Coo pe r, Fed eral Prac ti ce an d P ro cedur e § 36 12 , at 5 49 (3ded . 20 09 ). Here, h owe ve r, qu it e th e op po si te is tru e. Thes e adm is si on s wo rkag ai ns t Os car S r.’s in te res t an d t hu s ca rry ev id en ti ary weig ht . See Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (d )(2 )(A) (p erm it ti ng he ars ay st at em en ts by a part y -o pp on en t’s o wn m ou th or t hr ou gh he r rep res en ta ti ve s) ; cf . Fed . R. Evi d. 80 4( b) (3 ) (p erm itti ng he ars ay fro m un av ai labl e d ecl aran ts if the st at em en t

“ ren de r[s ] in va li d acla im by the de cl aran t ag ai ns t an othe r [s uc h t ha t] a reas on ab le pe rs on inth e d ecl aran t’s p os it io n wo ul d n otha ve m ad e th e st at em en t u nl es s be li ev in g i t t o b e true ”). Nex t, Os car S r.’s de po si ti on tes ti m on y gi ve n p retria l s ug ge st s tha t h e pe rm an en tl y

res id es —an d t hu s i s d om ic il ed —i n F lo rid a. He st at es th athe is “ a pe rm an en t re si de ntof the Uni te d S ta te s” an d h as res id edinth e Uni te d S ta te s fo r

Ord ina ri ly, th e c om

pla intm ustal le ge the ci ti zenshi p, no t r esi den ce, of th e na tur al def

end ant s. 1 2 T aylorv. Apple ton , 30 F.3d 1365 , 136 7 ( 11t h Ci r. 1 994) (“ Cit izens hip , notre si den ce, is th e key factth at m ustbe al le ged in the complai nt to est abl is h di versi ty fora n atura l p er son .”) . W e ne ed n ot dis m is s t he amended c om

pla int , howe ver. 28 U.S.C. § 165 3 pr ovides : “ Def ect ive al le gatio ns o f j uri sdi ct ion m ay be amended, uponte rms, in the tr ia l o r appe ll at e c our ts .” Be cau se we r eadth is pr ovisi on l ibe ra ll y, see T om s v. Count ry Qual ity Meat s, Inc., 610 F.2d313 , 316 (5 th Cir . 198 0), we wi ll al low Osca r Sr .’s admissi ons andre cor d evide nce to cur e M oli nos ’s pl ead ing def ect . 19“ two to th ree years.” Whe n a sk edwhy he m ov edto th e Uni te d S ta te s, Os car S r. 1 3 rep li ed , “ Bec au se I am

ret ire d. I am

a ci ti zenan d l ik e th e Uni te d S ta te s.” As a

“pe rm an en t re si de nt ,” Osc ar Sr. s ug ge st s tha t h e in te nd s t o re si de inth e Uni te d St at es pe rm an en tl y . He li ve d i n Av en tu ra, Fl or id a whe n M ol in os fil edth is su it ; we m ay pre su m e th at , un ti l co ntro ve rte d b y fact , he i s d om ic il edat h is curren t res id en ce. See Slaug ht er v . Toy e Bro s. Yel lo w Cab Co ., 35 9 F .2d95 4, 9 56 (5t h Ci r. 19 66 ) (d es cri bi ng a “pr es um pt io n o f do m ic il e inth e juri sd ic ti on wher e th e pa rty is ares id en t atth e cru ci al ti m e, whi chinth is cas e is th e ti m e o f th e co m m en cem en t o f th e act io n” ). Furth erm or e, Osc ar Sr.’s re ti rem en t d ecre as es 1 4 th e li ke li ho odth athi s m ov e to Flo rid a was a te m po rary bus in es s arran ge m en t. Aga in stth is ev id en ce, Os car S r. m erel y st at es th athi s re si de nc e in Flo rid a was “ te m po rary” andth athe ha d c on ti nu in g b us in es s i nt eres ts inth e Dom in ic an Rep ub li c. To p ro ve th is ass ert io n, Os car S r. sa y s o nl y th at“ th e rec or d e vi de nc e de m on st rat es ” h is cla im .

T his st at ement c ame fro m Osc arSr. ’s in te rpr et er . T he t ra nsc ri pt re ads : 1 3 Q. How l ong have you li ved [a t yourre si den ce in Aventur a] ? T HE I NT ERPRET ER: He doe sn’ t r emem berexa ct ly si nce he came to th e Uni te d Sta te s, t wo t o thre e year s. T he E le venth Ci rc uitado pte d as bi ndi ng prec ede nt al l h old ings o f t he F if th Cir cui t p ri or to 1 4 Oct obe r 1 , 198 1. Bo nne r v. Cit y of Pr ic har d, 66 1 F.2 d 12 06, 1 207 (11 th Cir . 198 1) (e n ba nc) . 20The reco rdbe fo re u s re fu te s Os car S r.’s two cla im s. Re gard in g h is

“ te m po rary” resi de nc e, hi s d ep os it io n t es ti m on y do es st at e th athe res id es

“ [t]em po rari ly at 26 00 Isl an d B ou le va rd , Aven tu ra, Fl or id a.” “ Tem po rary” di d no t, h owe ve r, m eanth athe was p lann in g a t s om e p oi ntto lea ve Flo rid a. Rathe r, it was tem po rary becaus e, as Osca r Sr. s ta te d, “ itis no t my pro pe rty. Som eb ody

is lo an in g i t t o m e an d I a m us in g i t as lo ng as I am

pro vi de d wi th it .” Whe n a sk ed whe th er h e h ada “pe rm an en t re si de nc e,” h e d idno t cl ai m an y cit y inth e Dom in ic anRep ub li c; he was “ a p erm an en t re si de ntof t he Uni te d S ta te s” an d “ an Am eri cancit iz en .” Osc ar Sr.’s p ur

po rte d Do m in ic anbu si ne ss in te res ts are s im il arl y su sp ect . Fi rs t, h is de po si ti on tes ti m on y st at es th athe is “ ret ire d.” Seco nd , hi s tria l te st im on y sh ows th at , altho ug h h e was on th e b oa rdof d ire ct or s o f m an y co m pa ni es , th es e p os it io ns were “ ho no rary” andrequi redli tt le effo rt o n h is pa rt.

1 5 W it h t he ev id en ce b efo re u s, we ar e p ers ua de d tha t Os car S r. is a ci ti zenof Fl or id a an d t he refo re a p ro pe r de fen da ntun de r § 1 33 2( a)(2 ). B.

His tr ia l t est imony

doe s no t give th e na ti ona li ty of any of the se compani es. W e wi ll as sume 1 5 forth e s ake of

ar gum entth atth ey are al l Do m ini can . 21W e th eref or e tu rnto a m or e d iff

ic ul t que st io n: m

us t we d is m is s the en ti re cas e an d v acat e th e jud gm en t fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti onbe cau se ne it he r Car lo s n or

Osca r Jr . were p ro pe r pa rti es ? An ap pe ll at e co urt h as th e p owe r un de r Ru le 21 to res cu e anot he rwis e v al id jud gm en t b y

di sm is si ng no n- di ve rs e p art ie s. Newm an -Gree n, 4 90 U.S. at 8 32 –3 7, 10 9 S . Ct. at22 22 –2 5; Irao la , 23 2 F .3dat 8 60 –6 1; see als o Grupo Data flu x v . Atl as Glo ba l Gro up , L.P., 541 U.S. 56 7, 5 72 –7 3, 1 24 S. Ct. 1 92 0, 1 92 5, 1 58 L. Ed. 2 d 8 66 (20 04 ) (“ [C]ou rts of app eal s al so have th e au th or it y to cure a juri sd ic ti on al de fectby dis m is si ng a di sp en sabl e n on di ve rs e p arty .”). The r el ev an t po rti onof Rul e 2 1 p ro vi de s: “ Mi sjo in de r of pa rti es is no t a g ro un d fo r di sm is si ng anact io n. Onm ot io n o r onit s o wn, the co urt m ay at a ny tim e, on jus t t erm s, ad d ordro p apa rty.” Fed. R. Ci v. P. 2 1. Inus in g t hi s p owe r, th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt h as cau ti on edth atwe sh ou lddo so “ sp ari ng ly” andon ly if no pa rty will be pre jud ic edby the di sm is sa l. Newm an -Gree n, 4 90 U.S. at 8 37 –3 8, 1 09 S. Ct. at22 25 . Agai ns t thi s caut io n, ho wev er, l ie s an ot he r co m m an d fr om

th e Supr em e Co urt: “ Onc e a d iv ers it y cas e ha s b eentri edinfed eral co urt, . . . con si de rat io ns of f in al it y , effi ci en cy , and eco no m y be co m e o ve rwh el m in g.” Cat erp il la r, In c. v. Lewi s, 5 19 U.S. 61 , 75 , 11 7 S. Ct . 46 7, 4 76 , 13 6 L. Ed. 2 d 4 37 (19 96 ) (em ph as is ad de d) ; s ee al so 22Newm an -Gree n, 4 90 U.S. at 8 38 , 10 9 S . Ct. at22 26 (“Not hi ng bu t a was te of t im e

an d re so ur ces wou ldbe en ge nd eredby rem an di ng to th e Dis tri ctCo urt o r by fo rci ng th es e p art ie s t o b eg in an ew.”). Keep in g i n m in d t ha t thi s ca se ha s al read y be ento a jury tria l, we co m m en ce o urin qu iry. Two fac to rs est ab li sh pre jud ic e und er the Newm an -Gree n fr am ewo rk . W e fir stde te rm in e whe th er the no n- di ve rs e p arty is in di sp en sabl e und er Ru le 19 . Newm an -Gree n, 4 90 U.S. at 8 35 , 10 9 S . Ct. at22 24 . If th e p arty is in di sp en sabl e, th enwe m

us t d is m is s the en ti re ca se . See Fri tz v. Am . Hom e Sh ie ldCo rp ., 75 1 F.2 d 1 15 2, 1 15 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) (“ [The Pla in ti ff] app aren tl y ne ve r reque st edth e co urt t o d et erm in e th at[th e n on -d iv ers e d efen dant ] was no t an in di sp en sabl e p arty to th e act io n u nd er Ru le 19 , a fin di ng th atm us t b e m ad e b efo re a Ru le 21 di sm is sa l o f a n on di ve rs e p arty is ap pr op ria te .” (ci ti ng Ral li -Co ne y , Inc . v. Gat es , 52 8 F .2d57 2, 5 75 (5t h C ir. 1 97 6) ). Next , we m us t i nqui re wh ethe r th e p res en ce of th e n on -d iv ers e p arty

pro vi de d t he ot he r si de with atac ti cal adva nt ag e in th e li ti ga ti on . Newm an -Gree n, 4 92 U.S. at 8 38 , 10 9 S . Ct. at22 25 . Ru le 19 pro vi de s the rul es form an da to ry joi nd er o f pa rti es . For o ur pu rp os es , Rul e 1 9 i s a two- st ep in qu iry. Firs t, we d et erm in e whe th er the pa rti es —h ere C arl os an d Os car J r.—a re “ requi red ” p art ie s. Fed . R. Civ . P. 19 (a); se e al so Tem

pl e v . Synt he s C or

p., 4 98 U.S. 5, 7 , 11 1 S . Ct. 3 15 , 31 6, 1 12 L. Ed.

232d26 3 (1 99 0) . If th ey are re qu ire d p art ie s, b utcan no t b e joi ne d— i.e., b ecau se th ey are n on -d iv ers e—Rul e 1 9( b) pro vi de s a l is t o f fac to rs to “ de te rm in e whe th er, in equi ty andgo odco ns ci en ce, the act io n s ho ul d p ro ceedam on g t he ex is ti ng pa rti es or s ho ul d b e d is m is se d.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 19 (b ). 1 6 Ass um in g t ha t Ca rlo s an d Os car J r. are re qu ire d p art ie s, Os car S r. ha s n ot sh own th atth ey

are i nd is pe ns ab le un de r Ru le 19 (b ). The R ul e p ro vi de s: If a p ers on who is requi redto be joi ne d i f fea si bl e can no t b e joi ne d, th e co urt m

us t d et erm in e whe th er, i n e qu it y an d g oo d c on sc ie nc e, th e act io n s ho ul d p ro ceedam on g t he ex is ti ng parti es or s ho ul d b e di sm is se d. Th e fac to rs forth e co urt t o c on si de r in cl ud e: (1 ) th e ex te ntto whi cha jud gm en t re nd eredinth e pe rs on ’s abs en ce m ig htpre jud ic e th atpe rs on or the ex is ti ng pa rti es ; (2 ) th e ex te ntto whi chan y pre jud ic e co ul d b e le ss en ed orav oi de d b y : (A) p ro te ct iv e p ro vi si on s i n t he jud gm en t; (B) s hapi ng th e rel ie f; o r (C) o th er m eas ur es ; (3 ) whe th er a ju dg m en t re nd eredinth e p ers on ’s abs en ce wou ldbe ad equa te ; an d (4 ) whe th er the pl ai nt iff

wou ldha ve anad equa te rem edy if t he act io n wer e d is m is se d fo r no n- joi nd er. Fed . R. Civ . P. 19 (b ). Thes e fac to rs are “ no t i nt en de d t o e xc lu de ot he r co ns id erat io ns ”; “pr ag m at ic co ns id erat io ns ” p lay a ke y rol e inou r de te rm in at io n. Fed . R. Civ . P. 19 advi so ry co m m it te e’s no te s.

I t i s i n this se nse th at“i ndi spe nsi bil it y” is akin t o pr ej udi ce. 1 6 24Co ns id erat io n (1 ) do es no t ai d Os car S r. He cla im s p reju di ce b ecau se “ he

wil l b e h el d l iabl e o n aco nt ractof wh ic h t he re i s n o e vi de nc e th athe ha d any part in th e fo rm at io n, b as edon th e al le ge d a ct s o f two in di vi du al s, al so all eg ed ly pa rti es to th e co nt ract , whi chwere n ev er p ro pe rly befo re the co urt.” Th is arg um en t i s n on -res po ns iv e to th e in qu iry. T he advi so ry co m m it te e n ot es su gg es t th atth e p reju di ce i nv ol ve d re la te s t o t he jud gm en t i ts el f; “ [w]oul d a ny part y be ex po se d t o afres h a ct io n b y th e ab se nt ee [p arty ], an d i f so , ho w ser io us is th e th reat ? ” Fed . R. Civ . P. 19 advi so ry co m m it te e’s no te s. Os car S r. wil l n otbe requi redto bre ach an y

du ti es to Carl os or Os car J r. by pay in g m on ey dam ag es to Mo li no s. Co ns id erat io ns (2) an d (3 ) al so weig h a ga in stdi sm is sa l. The se pro vi si on s co m e in to pl ay

when—unl ik e th is cas e—l it ig an ts see k s pe ci fic rel ie f su chas a n in jun ct io n. In th atco nt ex t, i f a p arty ul ti m at el y

res po ns ib le forth e p la in ti ff’s woe s is no t p res en t, the co urt ca nn otdi rectth atpa rty to c ha ng e it s b eh av io r. See, e.g ., Wym bs v. Re publ ic anSta te Exec . Comm . of Fl a., 71 9 F .2d10 72 , 10 80 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). Mo ne y

da m ag es lac k t he se co nc ern s. Mo ne y is fun gi bl e; th e rec ip ie nt care s n otfro m

when ce i t ca m e. See Fe d. R. C iv . P. 19 advi so ry co m m it te e’s no te s (s ta ti ng th atm on ey

da m ag es inli euof s pe ci fic rel ie f wou ldall ev ia te ad equa cy co nc ern s) . 25Ade qu at e rem ed ie s, co ns id erat io n (4 ), is co nt es te d b y th e p art ie s. We need no t ad dr es s thi s i ss ue , ho wev er, b ecau se y etan ot he r pr act ic al co ns id erat io n weig hs ag ai ns t d is m is sa l. The fed eral co urts ha ve in ve st edsi gn ifi can t re so ur ces in th is m at te r: f

ift eenm on th s o f pr oc eed in gs inth e d is tri ctco urt an d aful l jury tri al . Thi s co nc ernforco ns erv in g ju di ci al res ou rces , alo ng with t he ab ov e an al y si s, de m on st rat es th at“ equi ty andgo odco ns ci en ce” d o n otrequi re tha t we fi ndOsca r Jr . andCarl os to be in di sp en sabl e p art ie s. W e al so can no t fi nda ta ct ic al adva nt ag e g ai ne d h ere. Tact ic al advant ag es in cl ud e acc es s t o o th erwi se un av ai labl e d is co ve ry m at eri al s o nl y

be cau se of t he pr es en ce o f th e im

pr op er p arty . See Newm an -Gree n, 4 90 U.S. at 8 38 , 10 9 S . Ct. at 22 25 –2 6. Os car S r. ha s n otpo in te d t o a ny dis co ve ry Mo li no s wo ul d n otha ve ot he rwis e rec ei ve d o r witne ss es itco ul d n otha ve cal le d; he co nc ed es th atOsca r Jr . andCarl os were wi th in th e co urt’s s ub po en a p owe r. Osca r Sr. co nt en ds th at , be cau se Carl os an d Os car J r. were fo rcedto tes ti fy on th ei r own be ha lf, M ol in os ga in edanadva nt ag e b y

qu es ti on in g t he m

on cro ss -ex am in at io n ra th er tha n o n di rectex am in at io n. Th is co nc ernis irr el ev an t; he do es no t cl ai m th atCarl os an d Osc ar J r. wou ldtes ti fy

to di ffer en t fa ct s i n t hi s co un te rfac tu al . Osc ar Sr. al so co m

pl ai ns th athe was p reju di cedbe cau se m os t o f th e ev id en ce attri al de al t wi th th e co nduc t o f Osc ar J r. an d C arl os . This co nc ernis 26si mil arl y

irr el ev an t. The jury fo un d Os car S r. li ab le for bre ach in g the co nt ract with M ol in os . W ere h e tr ie d s ep arat el y , Mo li no s wo ul d p res en t the same facts to th e jury; Osca r Sr. h as no t p oi nt edto an y ev id en ce tha t wo ul d b e in adm is si bl e o r ot he rwis e una va il ab le at t hi s h y po th et ic al tri al . W e can no t as su m e a d iff eren t ou tc om e wit ho utdi ffer en t fa ct s. W e fu rth er n ot e th at , eve n i f Osc ar Sr. d idsu ffera ta ct ic al di sa dv an ta ge , he ha d t he po wer t o re m edy

th atis su e. He, Osca r Jr ., andCarl os were re pr es en te d b y th e sa m e co un se l, wh o c ou ldha ve di sc ov eredth atOsca r Jr . andCarl os were Dom in ic ancit iz en s. Whatis m or e, Osc ar Sr. m us t h av e kno wn h is so ns ’ imm ig rat io n s ta tu se s. HadOsca r Sr. rai se d t he se juri sd ic ti on co nc ern s earli er i n th e d is tri ctco urt— or

ev enat a ll —we m ig htbe sym pa th et ic ; as he di d n ot , we are no t. See Ing ram

v. CS X Trans p., In c., 14 6 F .3d85 8, 8 62 –6 3 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 8) (“ [Pre jud ic e co nc ern s] m ig htbe pe rs ua si ve wher e a l it ig an t ra is es th e juri sd ic ti on al is su e atanearl ie r st ag e in th e p ro ceed in gs . [The l it ig an t], ho wev er, wait edun ti l h er o ral arg um en t p res en ta ti on on ap pe al —l on g a fte r th e d is tri ct co urt’s ad ve rs e ru li ng on th e m eri ts of h er ca se . W e d ecl in e to rewardsu ch de la y .”).

27Osc ar Sr. wi ll face no pre jud ic e as th e so le de fen dantinth is cas e. W e th eref or e u se ou r Ru le 21 po wer t o d is m is s C arl os an d Os car J r. fro m th is cas e an d ret ai n Os car S r. C. The Lam as —n ow ju stOscar Sr.— ch al le ng e d iv ers ity on y etan ot he r gr ou nd . He clai m s tha t M ol in os im pr op erl y om it te d C hi ps te k a ndExp ert ek —the writ ers of the ba d c he ck s— as de fen dant s b ecau se th ei r Dom in ic ancit iz en sh ip wou ldde st ro y

co m pl et e d iv ers it y . Accor di ng ly, he arg ue s tha t we s ho ul d e it he r im pu te th e Dom in ic ancit iz en sh ip to Osca r Sr. o r th atCh ip st ek an d Ex pe rte k a re in di sp en sabl e p art ie s u nd er Ru le 19 . 1 7 Osc ar Sr.’s i m

pu ta ti on arg um en t fl ows fro m a co rp or at e-l aw an al og y , cit in g a cas e fro m

th e Fi fth Cir cu it , Freem anv. No rth wes t Acc ep ta nc e Co rp ., 75 4 F .2d 55 3 (5 thCir . 19 85 ). Ther e, th e p la in ti ff s ou gh t t o h ol d aparen t co rp or at io n l iabl e fo r it s s ub si di ary’ s ac ti on s o n t he th eo ry th atth e subs id ia ry

was t he pa ren t’s al te r eg o—th e sam e th eo ry

Mo li no s ci te d t o h ol d Os car S r. li ab le un de r th e Co un t IV

T he L amas m ade both ar gum ent s be for e t he d is tr ic t c our t. On ap pea l, h owever, itapp ear s t hat 1 7 the Lamas ch ose to fo cus sol el y on the Rul e 19 ar gum ent . Unde r n ormal c ir cumstan ces , th e i m put at ion ar gum entwoul d thus be wai ved. W e wi ll addre ss thi s a rgum ent , howe ver, ou t o f a n ab unda nce of cau ti on b eca use , if

m er it ori ous , itcou ld dep ri ve thi s c our t o f s ubj ectm at te r j uri sdi ct ionandth us t he powerto hea r t his app eal . 28worth le ss ch eckcla im . See i d. at55 4– 55 . The co urt o f ap pe al s i m pu te d t he subs id ia ry ’s cit iz en sh ip to th e p aren t an d i n d oi ng so de st ro y edco m pl et e d iv ers ity . Two s tra nd s o f co rp or at e cas e la w supp orte d the co urt’s ru li ng . Firs t, co ns ol id at edco rp or at io ns m ay , incert ai n c irc um st an ces , ret ai n t he cit iz en sh ip of bo th pre -co ns ol id at edco m pa ni es . Id. at55 6 (c it in g J oh n M oh r & So ns v. Ap ex Term in al W areh ou se s, In c., 42 2 F .2d63 8, 6 41 (7t h C ir. 1 97 0) ). A seco ndli ne of cas es de al t wi thpe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ; the subs id ia ry ’s am en ab il it y to servi ce o f pr oc es s wo ul d b e im

pu te d t o t he pa ren t wh ere t he pa ren t was su edforth e subs id ia ry ’s act io ns . Id. at55 7– 58 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Esse nt ia ll y , th e co urt lo ok edto subs ta nc e o ve r fo rm an d i m pu te d t he subs id iary ’s cit iz en sh ip to th e pa ren t as if i t h adin co rp or at edinm ul ti pl e st at es . Id. at55 8. The di stric t co urt re

jecte d t hi s ar gu m en t as ap pl ie d t o M ol in os . Firs t, the co urt n ot edth at“ Mo li no s . . . has lo ok edat s ub st an ce o ve r fo rm ” an d s ue d the actua l p arty

res po ns ib le forit s h arm

—the Lam as . Seco nd , th e co urt re fu se d t o ex te ndFree m an ’s par en t-s ub si di ary im pu ta ti on to su it s ag ai ns t s ha reh ol de rs . Reg ard in g t he Co un t I b reac h o f co nt ractcla im , th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi rs t ba si s i s p ers ua si ve . Mol in os all eg ed , andth e jury bel ie ve d, tha t the Lam as pe rs on al ly ent eredin to a co nt ractwith M ol in os vi a th e Lam as ’ ag en t. Un de r th es e

29te rm s, Ch ip st ekan d Ex pe rte k wer e n otpa rti es to th e co nt ract , andth eref or e n ot pr op er p art ie s i n t hi s l aws ui t. W e fi ndth e d is tri ctco urt’s s eco ndex pl an at io n p ers ua si ve as t o t he Co un t IV wort hl es s ch eckcla im th atMo li no s p res se s o n app eal . Freem an ’s lo gi c is in ap po si te when ap pl ie d t o i nd iv idua ls . Cor po rat io ns are “ ci ti zen s” for di ve rs ity 1 8 pu rp os es wher ev er the y

are i nc or po rat edan d h av e th ei r pr in ci pa l p la ce o f bu si ne ss . 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2( c)(1 ). As a re su lt , cor po rat io ns m ay

be cit iz en s o f
m ul ti pl e st at es . Furt he rm or e, co rp or at io ns canm erg e an d re -fo rm th em se lv es whe rev er an d i n a s m an y st at es as t he y

pl eas e. In di vi du al s h av e n o s uc h p aral le l. The y are o nl y cit iz en s o f th e st at e in whi chth ey are d om ic il ed , McCo rm ic k v . Ade rh ol t, 2 93 F.3d12 54 , 12 57 –5 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) ; s ee al so 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2( a)(1 ), an d t he y

ha ve on ly one do m ic il e, 13 E Cha rle s A. Wrigh t, etal., supr a, § 3 61 2, at52 8. Th ey can no t ch oo se to sp li t the ir i de nt it ie s an d

“ in co rp or at e” i n asec on d s ta te . Free m an ’s ana lo gy to p ers on al juri sd ic ti on is si m il arl y un av ai li ng . Every in di vi du al ha s b uton e d om ic il e an d i s a c it iz enof o nl y on e st at e. Thatsame in di vi du al , ho wev er, i s amenab le to pro ces s i n a ny sta te inwhi chth e in di vi du al

W e ha ve no op ini on whe the r Fr eeman’s hol din g is s oundandsho uldbe fol lowe d by thi s 1 8 Cir cui t. Rather , we merel y hold that , what ever i ts vali dit y else wher e, i ts lo gic doe s no t appl y to ind ividu al s. 30m ai nt ai ns “ m in im um co nt act s.” PVC W in do or s, In c. v. Babb itba y Beac h C on st ., N.V., 598 F.3d80 2, 8 07 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Bu t h av in g m in im um co nt act s wi th on e st at e d oe s n otch an ge anin di vi du al ’s do m ic il e. Cf. Su ns eri , 41 2 F .3dat 1 24 9 (d efi ni ng do m ic il e as on e’s “ tru e, fi xe d a ndpe rm an en t h om e an d p rin ci pa l es tabl is hm en t, an d t o wh ic h h e h as th e in te nt io n o f returni ng when ev er h e is ab se ntth eref

ro m ” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ). It the refo re fo ll ows th at , if an in di vi du al were co nduc ti ng he r bu si ne ss vi a a co rp or at e sh el l, the co rp or at io n’s m in im um co nt act s wo ul d n ot , eve n i f th ey co ul d i nc reas e th e num

be r of st at es inwhi chsh e co ul d b e su ed , alt er h er d om ic il e. W e th eref

or e rejectOscar Sr.’s im

pu ta ti on arg um en t. In st ead , he m us t co nv in ce thi s co urt tha t Ch ip st ekan d Ex pe rte k are i nd is pe ns ab le pa rti es un de r Ru le 19 an d tha t the di st ric t co urt erredinfai li ng to di sm is s the cas e und er Ru le 12 (b )(7 ). As s ta te d abo ve , Rul e 1 9 p ro vi de s fo r m an da to ry joi nd er o f “ requi red ” pa rti es , who se ab se nc e wil l p reju di ce ei th er the ab se ntpa rty or the li ti ga nt s. Whe re the requi redpa rty cann otbe joi ne d— be cau se do in g s o wo ul d d efea t subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on—the co urt m us t d et erm in e whe th er the laws ui t ca n pr oc eedwitho utth e p arty “ in equi ty andgo odco ns ci en ce.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 19 (b ). The co urt m

us t co ns id er the pre

jud ic e su ffer edby the li ti ga nt s, wh ethe r itcan

31sh ap e rel ie f to av oi d p reju di ce, wh ethe r a jud gm en t wo ul d b e ad equa te , and

whe th er the pl ai nt iff

wou ldhave anad equa te rem edy if the act io n wer e d is m is se d. Id . Agai n, the se fact or s ar e n otex cl us iv e, an d the co urt m ay co ns id er o th er

“pr ag m at ic co ns id erat io ns .” Id . adv is ory co m m it te e’s no te s. The di stric t co urt re

jecte d t he Lam as ’ Ru le 19 arg um en t p rin ci pa ll y be cau se itwas fi le d o n t he fir stda y of t ria l. Alt ho ug h R

ul e 1 2( b) (7 ) m ot io ns m ay be rai se d ev enat tria l, the lat e ti min g v io la te d t he di st ric t co urt’s s ch edul in g o rd er b ecau se di sp os it iv e m ot io ns were due m on th s ea rli er. Whi le we do no t d is ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng , Osca r Sr.’s b rie f to th is co urt p ro vi de s a s im

pl er b as is with wh ic h t o re ject h is arg um en t: he do es no t art ic ul at e an y

reas on why he or t he ab se ntpa rti es wou ldbe pre jud ic ed . As th e pa rty inv ok in g R

ul e 1 9, i t i s h is bu rd ento de m on st rat e whi chRu le 19 (b ) fac to rs requi reddi sm is sa l “ in equi ty andgo odco ns ci en ce.” Se e Fo cu s o n t he Fam il y v. Pi ne ll as Sunc oa stTran si t Au th ., 34 4 F .3d12 63 , 12 80 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (“ Howev er, [th e m ov in g p arty ] ha s i de nt ifi edno reas on why [th e ab se ntpa rty] can no t b e joi ne d i n t hi s ac ti on[th us requi rin g d is m is sa l u nd er Ru le 19 (b )].”). His on ly col or ab le arg um en t l ie s i n acit at io n t o re le va ntau th or it y st at in g th atth e act in g s ub si di ary is a ne ces sa ry pa rty whena pl ai nt iff

su es th e p aren t co rp or at io n fo r th e subs id ia rie s’ act io ns . See, e.g ., Freem an , 75 4 F .2dat 5 59 . 32Eve n h ere, h is arg um en t fa il s; th e o nl y bi nd in g p rece de nthe cit es , Dern ic k v . Bral orne Res ou rces , Ltd ., 63 9 F .2d19 6 (5 th Cir . 19 81 ), he ldth atth e subs id ia ry in qu es ti on was n otin di sp en sabl e. See i d. at19 9– 20 0 (f in di ng th atth e subs id ia ry wou ldno t b e h arm edbe cau se th e p la in ti ff’s m on ey dam ag es ag ai ns t the pa ren t wou ldno t h arm

th e subs id ia ry ’s ti tl e to th e rel ev an t p ro pe rty). Ch ip st ek an d Ex pe rte k a re n otin di sp en sabl e p art ie s an d we n eedno t di sm is s thi s ac ti onun de r Ru le 19 . W it h t he juri sd ic ti on al is su es set tl ed , we no w m ov e to th e m eri ts of t he pa rti es ’ ap pe al s. III. Mo li no s ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s J anua ry 26 ord er d is m is si ng th e Co un t IV wort hl es s ch eckcla im un de r Ru le 50 . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t M ol in os ha d n otpre se nt edsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce attri al to pi erce th e co rp or at e v ei l o f bo th Ch ip st ekan d Expe rte k t o h ol d t he Lam as pe rs on al ly liab le forth e b adch eck s is su edun de r th os e co rp or at e n am es . Rul e 5 0 p ro vi de s i n re le va ntpa rt: If a p arty ha s b eenful ly heardon anis su e dur in g ajury tri al an d t he co urt fi nd s tha t a r eas on ab le jury wou ldno t h av e a l eg al ly suf fic ie nt ev id en ti ary ba si s t o fi ndfor th e p arty onth atis su e, th e co urt m ay : (A) res ol ve th e is su e ag ai ns t the party; an d (B) g ran t a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law ag ai ns t the party ona cl ai m or d efen se th at , un de r th e co nt ro ll in g l aw, canbe m ai nt ai ne d o r de feat edon ly w it h a fav or ab le fin di ng on th atis su e.

33Fed . R. Civ . P. 50 (a)( 1) . W e rev ie w th is cla im de no vo an d c on si de r th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty . Abel v. Dubb erl y , 21 0 F .3d 13 34 , 13 37 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Inde ci di ng th es e cl ai m s, we ar e ap pl y in g F lo rid a’s subs ta nt iv e la w. See Erie R.R. Co . v. Tompki ns , 30 4 U.S. 6 4, 7 8, 5 8 S . Ct. 8 17 , 82 2, 8 2 L. Ed. 1 18 8 (1 93 8) . Whe re the hi gh es t co urt— inth is cas e, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt—ha s sp ok enon th e to pi c, we fo ll ow i ts rul e. Whe re tha t co urt h as no t s po ke n, h owe ve r, we m us t p red ic t h ow the hi gh es t co urt wo ul d d eci de th is cas e. Gui de on e Eli te Ins . Co . v. OldCu tl er Pre sb yte ria n C hu rch , Inc ., 42 0 F .3d13 17 , 13 26 n.5 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Deci si on s o f th e in te rm ed ia te ap pe ll at e co urts —h ere, the Flo rid a Dis tri ct Co urts of Ap pe al —p ro vi de da taforth is pre di ct io n. Br av o v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 77 F.3 d 1 32 4, 1 32 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (pe r cu ria m) (ci ti ng W es t v . Am . Tel. & Tel . Co., 31 1 U.S. 2 23 , 23 7, 6 1 S . Ct. 1 79 , 18 3, 8 5 L. Ed. 1 39 (19 40 )). As a g en eral m at te r, we m us t fo ll ow the de ci si on s o f th es e in te rm ed ia te co urts . Alls ta te Life I ns . Co. v . Mi ll er, 4 24 F.3d11 13 , 11 16 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Bu t we m ay di sr eg ardth es e de ci si on s i f pe rs ua si ve ev id en ce d em on st rat es th atth e h ig he stco urt wo ul d co nc lu de ot he rwis e. Id . Here, p ie rci ng th e co rp or at e v ei l was ne ces sa ry to ho ldOsca r Sr. an d t he Lam as li ab le for

th e worth le ss ch eck s. Fl or id a’s worth le ss ch eckst atut e, Fl a. St at . 34§ 6 8.0 65 , pu ni sh es th e m ak in g o r dr awin g o f a b adch eck . Butin di vi du al si gn ers

of co rp or at e ch eck s ar e n otli ab le forth os e ch eck s; th e co rp or at io n re m ai ns li ab le . See F la . Sta t. § 67 3.4 02 1( 3) . Chi ps te k a ndExp ert ekwere the tru e “ vi ol at or s” of th e worth le ss ch eckst atut e. Mo li no s the refo re s ou gh t t o h ol d Os car S r. li ab le for Ch ip st ek ’s andExp ert ek ’s act io ns by pie rci ng th e co rp or at e v ei l u nd er al te r eg o an d a ge nc y

th eo rie s. Mo li no s ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng on two fro nt s. Fi rs t, Mo li no s arg ue s tha t i t d idpre se ntsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o p ie rce t he ve il un de r analt er eg o th eo ry . Seco nd , itcla im s tha t i t al so pre se nt edev id en ce tha t Ch ip st ek an d Exp ert ekwere the Lam as ’ ag en ts , andth eref or e we m ay

im pu te th e worth le ss ch eckto th em

pe rs on al ly. W e fi ndne it he r of th es e arg um en ts av ai li ng . A. On ap pe al , Mo li no s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erro ne ou sl y co nc lu de d t ha t itdi d n otpre se ntsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o p ie rce t he ve il s o f Ch ip st ekan d Ex pe rte k un de r analt er eg o t he ory . In the di st ric t co urt, Mo li no s cl ai m edth atth e Lam as , Osc ar Sr. i nc lu de d, co ntro ll edth es e co rp or at io ns by virtue of t he ir p os it io ns on th e bo ardof d ire ct or s. Mo li no s n eed edto pi erce th es e v ei ls be cau se on ly Chi ps te k 1 9
As s ta te d ea rl ie r, s ee sup ranot e 2, th e r eco rd is unc le arwhetherOsc arSr. is al so asha re hol der 1 9 in ei the r o f t hes e c om

pan ie s. M oli nos , howe ver, on ly ass erts th atOsc arSr. is li abl e by virtue o f h is dir ect or pos it ion ; i t c le ar ly does notbel ie ve tha t Os carSr. is a s har eho lde r. We wil l h onorMo li nos ’s wis hes anddi sr egard the pos si bil it y thatOsc arSr. is a s har eho lde r o f Ch ips te k or Exp erte k. 35an d Ex pe rte k, the si gn er o f th e ch eck s, co ul d b e h el d l iabl e und er Fl or id a’s

worth le ss ch eckst atut e. The a lt er eg o t he ory co ul d wo rkaro un d t hi s h ur dl e. Inret ort, the Lam as arg ue th atMo li no s’s v ei l p ie rci ng arg um en t fa il s as a m at te r of law b ecau se th e Lam as were n otsh areh ol de rs of e ithe r co rp or at io n; Glo ba lt ekown edth e co m pani es . Altho ug h t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt h as ne ve r

2 0 squa rel y an swe redth is qu es ti on , we pre di ctth atitwou ldag ree wi th th e Lam as an d re ject M ol in os ’s arg um en t. A cor po rat io n i s a l eg al en ti ty—a fic ti on al pe rs on—capabl e o f en te rin g co nt ract s an d d oi ng bu si ne ss init s o wn ri gh t. The pu rp os e o f th is fic ti on is to li mitth e li ab il it y

of t he co rp or at io n’s o wne rs , whet he r th ey be in di vi du al s o r ot he r co rp or at io ns . Fin di ng th is arrang em en t u se fu l t o c omm erce , th e Fl or id a co urts wil l n oteas il y

di sr eg ardth is fic ti on . See Ro be rts ’ Fi sh Farm v. Sp en cer, 1 53 So . 2d71 8, 7 21 (Fl a. 19 63 ). It i s b la cklet te r la w inFlo rid a th atto di sr eg ardth is co rp or at e fi ct io n a nd ho ldth e co rp or at io n’s o wne rs li ab le —t o “ pi erce th e co rp or at e v ei l” —the pl ai nt iff
m us t p ro ve th at : (1 ) th e sh areh ol de r do m in at edan d c on tro ll edth e co rp or at io n t o s uc h anex te ntth atth e co rp or at io n’s i nd ep en de ntex is te nc e, was infact T he L amas ra is e t his ar gum entfo r t he f ir stti m e onapp eal . W er e t hey the app el la nt forth is 2 0 cl ai m , we wo uldfi nd the a rgum entdul y waived. Howe ver, we m ay aff irm th e di stri ctcou rt ’s ru li ng on any ground sup porte d by the re cor d. Po wer s v. Unit ed S ta te s, 9 96 F. 2d 1 121, 112 3–24 (1 1th Cir . 199 3). 36no n- ex is te ntan d t he sh areh ol de rs were i n fa ctalt er eg os of t he

co rp or at io n; (2 ) th e co rp or at e fo rm

m us t h av e b eenus edfrau du le nt ly or fo r an im pr op er p ur

po se ; an d (3 ) th e fraudul en t o r im

pr op er u se of t he co rp or at e fo rm cau se d i nju ry to th e cl ai m an t. Gas parin i v . Por do min go , 97 2 S o. 2 d 1 05 3, 1 05 5 (F la . 3dDis t. Ct . App . 20 08 ) (em ph as is ad de d) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ; s ee al so 8A Fl a. Ju r. 2dBu si ne ss Rel at io ns hi ps § 1 3 (2 00 8) . “ Sh areh ol de rs ” in cl ud e in di vi du al s wh o o wn s to ck , se e, e.g ., McCo rm ackv. Ri bb eck , 70 2 S o. 2 d 2 71 , 27 1– 72 (Fl a. 1s t Di st . Ct. Ap p. 19 97 ), an d p aren t co m

pa ni es who ownth ei r subs id ia rie s, s ee, e.g ., 17 31 5 C ol li ns Ave ., LLC v. Fo rtu ne Dev. Sa le s C or p., 3 4 S o. 3 d 1 66 , 16 8 (F la . 3dDis t. Ct . App . 20 10 ). The th em e o f own ers hi p u nd erl ie s Fl or id a’s le ad in g c as e o n p ie rci ng th e co rp or at e v ei l, Dan iaJai -Ala i Pa la ce, In c., v. Sykes , 45 0 S o. 2 d 1 11 4 (F la . 19 84 ). InSyke s, the pl ai nt iff

su eda pa ren t co m

pa ny andit s two s ub si di ari es . Alth ou gh on ly one of the subs id ia rie s co m m it te d t he to rt i n que st io n, the pl ai nt iff all eg ed th atth e subs id ia rie s o pe rat edas o ne en ti ty andth atth es e subs id ia rie s wer e th e

“ m ere i ns tru m en ta li ti es ” o f th e p aren t, wh ic h s ho ul d b e li ab le forth e subs id ia ry ’s act io ns . Id. at11 16 . The tria l co urt ac cep te d t hi s ar gu m en t an d t he di st ric t co urt

37of

ap pe al affi rm ed , ho ld in g t ha t the pl ai nt iff ne edno t p ro ve an y

frau d o r wro ng do in g o n the part o f th e p aren t co rp or at io n, the subs id ia rie s’ own er. Id . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt re jecte d t hi s u nd ers ta nd in g, an d i n d oi ng so , ba se d t he rat io na le for

pi erci ng th e v ei l o n s hareh ol de r li ab il it y . The co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t s hareh ol de rs in co rp or at e to li m itth ei r li ab il it y , creat in g asep arat e en ti ty tha t i s “ ap artfro m

it s s to ckho ld ers .” Id . at 1 11 8 (quo ti ng Rie se n v . Md . Cas . Co., 1 4 S o. 2 d 1 97 , 19 9 (F la . 19 43 )). Co rres po nd in gl y , cou rts wil l n otig no re th is sep arat e en ti ty so l on g a s the st oc kh ol de rs m ak e “pr op er u se ” o f th is fic ti on ; th ey m us t n otus e li m it edli ab il it y to de frau d c red it or s. Id . (ci ti ng Rie se n, 1 4 S o. 2dat 1 99 ; Ba rn es v. Lie bi g, 1 So . 2d24 7, 2 53 –5 4 (F la . 19 41 )). Itis when sh areh ol de rs “ im

pr op erl y di sr eg ard [] the co rp or at e id en ti ti es ” th atli ti gant s m ay pe el ba ckth e v ei l o f li m it edli ab il it y an d h ol d the co rp or at io n’s o wne rs res po ns ib le forit s d eb ts . Id. Syke s’s d is cu ss io n o f an ot he r se m in al cas e, Mayer v. Eas two od -Sm it h & Co ., 16 4 S o. 6 84 (Fl a. 19 35 ), al so em ph as iz es own ers hi p. InMayer, th e in di vi du al de fen da ntlo an edbo nd s t o t he co rp or at io n i n e xc hang e fo r 25 pe rcen t of th e co rp or at io n’s p ro fit s an d h el d, as sec ur it y , th e co rp or at io n’s s to ck . Id. at 68 4– 85 . As th e Syke s co urt ex pl ai ne d, the in di vi du al inMayer was n otli ab le be cau se he 38own edno ne of t he st oc k, h el d i t o nl y as s ecu rit y , nev er m ad e u se or cl ai m edown ers hi p o f th e st oc k, an d d idno t co m m itany im pr op er ac t. Inot he r wor ds , [he ] ha d n o re la ti on sh ip with t he co rp or at io n u nd er an y th eo ry th atwou ldwarran t h ol di ng hi m li ab le for th e d eb ts of t he co rp or at io n a ndha d n otco m m it te d a ny im

pr op er ac t. Syke s, 4 50 So . 2dat 1 11 8 (e m ph as is ad de d) . Osc ar Sr., the rem ai ni ng de fen da nt , di d n otownst oc k i n C hi ps te k o r Exp ert ek . Glo ba lt ekown edth e sh ares . As s ta te d abo ve , no rm al ve il pi erci ng 2 1
cas es see k t o h ol d t he pa ren t co rp or at io n—he re Gl ob al te k— li ab le , no t the pa ren t’s sh areh ol de rs or t he subs id ia ry ’s off ic ers . See USP Re al Est at e In v. Tru stv. Dis co un t Au to Part s, In c., 57 0 S o. 2 d 3 86 , 39 3 (F la . 1s t Di st . Ct. Ap p. 1 99 0) . Mo li no s co nt en ds , ho wev er, tha t thi s ar gu m en t i s a “ co nt riv edap pr oa ch ” to th e la w andth atFlo rid a p erm it s s ui ts ag ai ns t i nd iv idua ls who are n otsh areh ol de rs . Mo li no s ci te s two ca se s fo r th is pro po si ti on . The fi rs t ca se , In re Mu lt ip on ic s, In c., 62 2 F .2d70 9 (5 th Cir . 19 80 ), is in ap po si te be cau se th e in di vi du al was a ls o th e so le sh areh ol de r of

th e co m pa ny in que st io n, i d. at72 5. Mo li no s ci te s o ne cas e th atpi erce s the ve il ag ai ns t a n on -s ha reh ol de r of fic er. W al to n v . Tom ax Co rp ., 63 2 S o. 2 d 1 78 , 18 1 n .2 (F la . 5th Di st . Ct. Ap p. 19 94 ); s ee al so Berm il Co rp . v. Sawyer, 35 3 S o. 2 d 5 79 , 58 4 (F la . 3dDis t. Ct .
Glo bal te k was in tu rn ownedby ORLS Inte rna ti ona l Ho ldi ngs, whi ch wa s i n turn owne d by 2 1 L&S Corp., whi ch wa s, f ina ll y, owned b y the La m as. Again, we f oll ow M oli nos ’s le ad and d is re gard any pot ent ia l s har es Osca r Sr . m ay own i n ei the r Ch ips te k or Exp erte k. See s upr a no te 2. 39App . 19 78 ) (h ol di ng si m il arl y on si m il ar fa ct s, b utno t ci te d b y Mo li no s) . This cas e is di st in gu is habl e fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, the co rp or at io n i n que st io n was no t th e subs id ia ry

of a no th er co rp or at io n. Se co nd , th e so le sh areh ol de r in th atcas e was th e d efen da nt -o ffi cer’s wi fe. W al to n, 6 32 So . 2dat 1 79 ; s ee al so Sawy er, 3 53 So . 2dat 5 82 . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt wo ul d l ik el y fin d t ha t s eco ndfact di sp os it iv e; a wife ’s own ers hi p i s a v ery cl os e an al og ue to th e hus ba nd ’s own ers hi p b ecau se th e eco no m ic pro ceed s l ik el y be ne fitth e en ti re fa m il y

un it . A se pa rat e co rp or at e en ti ty is n ot hi ng li ke a sp ou se . Ourres earc h s ho ws o nl y

on e o th er ca se inwhi cha Fl or id a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal expl ic it ly founda no n- sh areh ol de r li ab le un de r a v ei l-p ie rci ng th eo ry . Sem in ol e Bo aty ard , Inc . v. Ch ris to ph , 71 5 S o. 2 d 9 87 , 99 0 (F la . 4th Di st . Ct. Ap p. 19 98 ). In S em in ol e, th e in di vi du al he ldli ab le was a ls o t he pre si de ntof t he co rp or at io n i n que st io n. Id . at 9 88 . It i s n otcle ar, h owe ve r, th atth e in di vi du al was no t al so a st oc kh ol de r. Fir st , th e co urt d oe s n otst at e who actua ll y own ed st oc k. Se co nd , th e co urt, i n t wo d iff eren t p art s o f th e o pi ni on , exp res se s the rel ev an t l aw in term s o f “ sh areh ol de rs .” Id . at 9 89 (“ If the st at e’s la w all ows th e de bt orco rp or at io n t o a ss erta cl ai m ag ai ns t a c on tro ll in g s ha reh ol de r to pi erce it s own co rp or at e v ei l, the n t he cla im is pro pe rty of the est at e.” (em ph as is ad de d) ); i d. at99 0 (r es ta ti ng th e b la cklet te r la w forpi erci ng th e co rp or at e v ei l i n t erm s o f 40“ sh areh ol de r” d om in at io n a ndco nt ro l). An d e ve n i f th is in di vi du al di d n otown

st oc k, we ar e co nf

id en t tha t the Flo rid a co urts ’ em ph as is on own ers hi p wo ul d cau se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t o p ay th is pre ced en t l it tl e h eed . W e th eref

or e co nc lu de th atFlo rid a law, as we p red ic t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt wo ul d d eci de , do es no t p erm ita pl ai nt iff to pi erce th e co rp or at e v ei l ag ai ns t a n on -s ha reh ol de r di rect or . If Mo li no s b el ie ve d t ha t Ch ip st ekan d Ex pe rte k wer e real ly sham

en ti ti es , itsh ou ldha ve su edGlo ba lt ek , no t Os car S r. 2 2 B. Mo li no s’s s eco ndis su e o n app eal arg ue s tha t Ch ip st ekan d Ex pe rte k wer e th e Lam as ’ ag en ts , andth atth ei r act io ns sh ou ldbe im pu te d t o Os car S r. The di st ric t co urt re

jecte d thi s ar gu m en t i n i ts ord er g ran ti ng th e Lam as jud gm en t as a m at te r of law o n t he Co un t IV wo rth le ss ch eckcla im . It fo un d t ha t M ol in os ha d ne ve r be fo re al le ge d t ha t the two co rp or at io ns were the Lam as ’ ag en ts ; the co urt refu se d t o a dd res s the cla im . Ru le 8 s et s the st an dardforpl ead in gs . It requi res th e p la in ti ff t o i nc lu de “ a sh ort an d p la inst at em en t o f th e cl ai m sh owi ng th atth e p le ad er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 8(a )(2 ). Ru le 8(d )(2 ) pe rm it s the pl ai nt iff to “ se t o ut2 o r

M oli nos cou ld hypothe ti cal ly hol d Osc arSr. li abl e by pi er ci ng the corpor at e veil th rou gh each 2 2 corpor at ion bet weenGlo bal te k and Osc arSr. However , M oli nos doe s no t p urs ue t his th eory. 41m or e st at em en ts of acla im . . . alt ern at iv el y

or h y po th et ic al ly, ei th er i n asi ng le co un t o r de fen se or i n s ep arat e o ne s.” If th e ev id en ce attri al bri ng s t o l ig hta ne w th eo ry of l iabi li ty, th e p la in ti ff m ay m ov e th e co urt t o am en d t he pl ead in gs if do in g s o wo ul d n otpre

jud ic e th e d efen da nt s. Fed . R. Civ . P. 15 (b ). W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t M ol in os di d n otrai se anag en cy th eo ry in an y of i ts co urt fi li ng s up u nt il tri al . The am en de d c om pl ai nton ly ass ert s the al te r eg o t he ory

to ho ldth e Lam as li ab le forCh ip st ek ’s andExp ert ek ’s act io ns . See Am . Com

pl . ¶ 21 (“ At al l m at eri al ti m es to th is Co m pl ai nt , Mo li no s an d t he Lam as were wel l awa re tha t the se en ti ti es were i n e ffec t m ere i ns tru m en ta li ti es , al te r eg os , of the Lam as . . . .” (em ph as is ad de d) ); i d. ¶ 5 6 (“ The Lam as , as h erei n de sc rib ed , ut il iz in g s ev eral of t he ir wh ol ly con tro ll edor wh ol ly owne d e nt it ie s as th ei r al te r eg os is su edan d c au se d t o b e is su edto Mo li no s fo urch eck s t ot al in g U.S. $6 36 ,59 6.0 0.” (em

ph as is ad de d) ). Nowh ere d oe s i t al le ge anag en cy rel at io ns hi p. Inop po si ng th e Lam as ’ m ot io n t o d is m is s, M ol in os ass ert edth e al te r eg o arg um en t ex cl us iv el y ; i t d idno t ar gu e th atth e co rp or at io ns were the Lam as ’ ag en ts . See Pl .’ s M em . Opp ’n to Def.’s Mo t. t o Di sm is s 1 8 (“ Defen da nt s, wh o were p ers on al ly liab le to Pla in ti ff u nd er the Fo rei gn Curren cy Exch an ge Agr eem en t, u se d C hi ps te k andExp ert ekas t he ir a lt er eg os .”). Infact , th e d is tri ct

42co urt ex pl ic it ly credi te d t he alt er eg o t he ory inde nyin g t he m ot io n t o d is m is s. Ord er Defs .’ Mo t. t o Di sm is s 9 . Fu rth erm or e, th e p art ie s’ Jo in t Pr etria l St ip ul at io n c on ti nu edto as se rt— co ntrary to M ol in os ’s arg um en t t o t hi s co urt— analt er eg o t he ory ex cl us iv el y . In i ts st at em en t o f th e cas e, Mo li no s s ta te s: “ At n o t im e dur in g t he nu m ero us m eet in gs an d c on ve rs at io ns he ldby repre se nt at iv es of M ol in os an d t he Lam as pe rs on al ly, di d the Lam as ass ertth at. . . Ch ip st ekan d Expe rte k wer e n ot m ere i ns tru m en ta li ti es ut il iz edto is su e th e worth le ss ch eck s t o M ol in os .” J. Pret ria l St ip ul at io n 4 . Und er i ts “ co nt es te d i ss ue s,” M ol in os rai se d, “ whe th er Defen da nt s d is reg ard edth e co rp or at e fo rm al it ie s an d u se d C hi ps te k, S.A. an d Exp ert ek , S.A. as the ir m ere i ns tru m en ta li ti es .” Id . at 7 . Mo li no s u se d t he word“ ag en t” forth e fi rs t t im e atth e Ja nu ary 22 he ari ng , de fen di ng ag ai ns t the Lam as ’ m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law atth e cl os e of Mo li no s’s ca se inch ie f. In p as si ng , Mo li no s’s co un se l s ai d, “ W e’re arg ui ng he re fro m th e o ut se t tha t Ch ip st ekan d Ex pe rte k wer e m ere a ge nt s o f th e Lam as . So , eit he r un de r th e al te r eg o t he ory or a n a ge nc y

th eo ry , th e rea l p art ie s h ere wer e th e Lam as .” It app ears ag ai n i n M ol in os ’s m em or an du m op po si ng th e Lam as ’ m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r la ck of s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . In b oth c as es , th e d is tri ct co urt re fu se d t o a ddres s thi s i ss ue be cau se itwas n otrai se d e arl ie r. 43W it h t he is su e ab se ntfro m Mo li no s’s am en de d c om pl ai nt , or a ny oth er co urt s ub m is si on , Mo li no s n eed edto m ov e to am en d t he co m pl ai ntun de r Ru le 15 (b ) to ad d t he ag en cy

th eo ry . It d idno t d o s o— ei th er o ral ly at tri al or v iaa pape r m ot io n. We will th eref or e fo ll ow the di st ric t co urt’s l eadan d re fu se to co ns id er the m eri ts of M ol in os ’s age nc y th eo ry . Havi ng reject edMo li no s’s cl ai m s on ap pe al , we no w m ov e to th e is su es rai se d i n Os car S r.’s ap pe al . IV. The Lam as fil eda se pa rat e ap pe al , con te st in g a n e vi de nt ia ry rul in g a nd li ab il it y onbo th co un ts . As la idou t i n p artII, Carl os an d Os car J r. are n o l on ge r pa rti es to th is act io n. Th ey m us t the refo re b e rem ov edfro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t an d C ou ntV, th e FDUPTA co un t ag ai ns t o nl y Carl os an d Os car J r., m us t b e d is m is se d. The rem ai ni ng is su es im

pa ctOsca r Sr.’s li ab il it y

reg ard in g t he Co un t I br each of c on tra ctact io n. Th e Lam as fir stfau ltth e d is tri ctco urt fo r adm it ti ng st at em en ts m ad e b y

Osca r Sr. an d C arl os du rin g p ur po rte d s et tl em en t n eg ot ia ti on s in 20 04 an d 2 00 6, v io la ti ng Evi de nc e Ru le 40 8. Th ey als o c la im

th at , th is erro r no twi th st an di ng , th e ev id en ce attri al was i ns uf fic ie ntto pro ve th atMejia , th e Lam as ’ cu rren cy

bro ke r, ha d aut ho rit y

to bi ndOscar Sr. t o t he tra ns act io n. We ad dr es s ea charg um en t i n turn. 44A.

Osc ar Sr. fi rs t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y adm it te d e vi de nc e o f se tt le m en t d is cu ss io ns be twee n h im an d M ol in os , invi ol at io n o f Evi de nc e Ru le 40 8. “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on th e adm is si bi li ty of ev id en ce fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, an d e vi de nt ia ry rul in gs wil l b e o ve rtu rn edon ly if th e m ov in g pa rty est ab li sh es th atth e ru li ng res ul te d i n a“ subs ta nt ia l p reju di ci al effe ct .” Pi am baCo rte s v . Am . Airl in es , Inc ., 17 7 F .3d12 72 , 13 05 –0 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Afte r Mo li no s l earn edth atth e Lam as ’ ch eck s h adbo un ced , th e p art ie s m et to di sc us s the is su e in Aug us t, Se pt em be r, an d Oct ob er o f 20 04 , andag ai n i n 20 06 . At th es e d is cu ss io ns , th e Lam as ackno wled ge d t he va li di ty of th e d eb t an d th e am ou ntof t he de bt . 2 3 The ev id en ce attri al sh owe d t ha t Os car S r. was p res en t aton e o f th e m eet in gs in20 04 an d a ga in in20 06 . Mol in os ’s witne ss es tes ti fie d tha t, dur in g 2 4

At the cl ose of

th e 20 04 n egoti at ion s, Ca rl os s igned apr om is sory note, a “ pague n oto ri al ,” 2 3 acknowl edging th athe was per son al ly re spo nsi ble fo r t he d ebt . T he p romiss ory not e was al so t he s ubj ect of the Lamas’ eviden ti ary chal le nge, but , be cau se itdoe s no t p erta in to Osca r Sr ., we wi ll notdi scu ss it her e. M ej iate st if

ie d that , af

te r t he c hec ks bounc ed, he met wi th Oscar Sr ., an d thatatth is m eet ing, 2 4 Osca r Sr . ac knowled ged tha t h e was per son al ly li abl e f or the deb t. I t i s no t c le arwhet herth is di scu ssi on occ urr ed i n the c ont extof th e purpo rt ed s et tl ement ne gotia ti ons orif th is was m er el y a pri vate d is cus si on bet weenMe

j iaandOsc arSr. W e a ssu m e f or the sa ke of a rgum entth atth is di scu ssi on t ook pla ce in the con te xt of set tl ement ne gotia ti ons ; o the rwi se, Eviden ce Rule 408 woul d no t c om e i nto pl ay. 45th es e m eet in gs , Osca r Sr. ackno wled ge d t ha t the de btwas p ers on al to hi m . 2 5

Carl os , a freque ntpre se nc e in th es e m eet in gs , als o a ckno wled ge d t ha t the Lam a fam il y was l iabl e fo r th e d eb t; acco rd in g t o o ne witne ss , Carl os ’s refer en ces to hi s fam il y in cl ud edOsca r Sr. Mo li no s s ou gh t t o u se th is ev id en ce t o p ro ve th atitwas th e Lam as pe rs on al ly, in cl ud in g Os car S r., an d n otCh ip st ekor Ex pe rte k, tha t wer e pa rti es to th e co nt ract . The Lam as m ov edinli m in e to ex cl ud e an y ev id en ce o f th es e ta lk s. Sty li ng th em “ se tt le m en t n eg ot ia ti on s,” t he y so ug htto ex cl ud e th es e co nv ers at io ns un de r Evi de nc e Ru le 40 8. Th e co urt d en ie d thi s m ot io n, ru li ng th atset tl em en t ne go ti at io ns wou ldbe adm is si bl e as cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o p ro ve th atth e Lam as were p art ie s t o the co nt ract , bu t n otas a n a dm is si onof l iabi li ty. Fu rth erm or e, th e co urt ru le d t ha t the se di sc us si on s wer e n otco ve redun de r Evi de nc e Ru le 40 8's pro sc rip ti on s b ecau se ne it he r th e v al id it y no r th e am ou ntof Mo li no s’s cl ai m

was e ve r in di sp ut e dur in g t he se ne go ti at io ns . 2 6 Mo li no s’s tria l wi tn es se s t es ti fie d t o s ta te m en ts m ad e dur in g t he pu rp orte d se tt le m en t n eg ot ia ti on s. Th e co urt g av e th e jury thi s l im it in g i ns tru ct io n:

Osc arSr. al so t est if

ie d attr ia l a nd d eni ed t hathe ever a cknowle dged th e de bt as per son al . 2 5 T he moti on i n l imine a ls o so ught t o ex cl ude evide nce of si de l it igati on b etweenth e pa rt ie s i n 2 6 the Dom ini canRepubli c. T he c ourt e xcl ude d an y sett le m entnegoti at ion s r egardi ng thatli ti gatio n, bu t dis ti nguish ed b etweenth e t hos e di scu ssi ons andth e 20 04 and 2 006 dis cus si ons des cr ibe d ab ove. 46You ’re go in g t o h ear e vi de nc e o f m eet in gs whi choc curred

aft er the ch eck s al le ge dl y were re tu rn edforin su ffi ci en t fu nd s o r be cau se th e acc ou ntwas c lo se d. Tha t ev id en ce i s n otadm it te d fo r th e p ur po se of e st ab li sh in g an ag reem en t o n t he part o f th e Lam as th atth ey owedth e d eb t, b utitis adm is si bl e fo r ot he r pu rp os es ; fo r in st an ce, fo r y outo de te rm in e wit h who m Mo li no s h adanag reem en t, i f an y on e, with re sp ectto th e cu rren cy ex ch an ge an d wi th res pe ctto , for in st an ce, wh ethe r th ere i s an y leg al di st in ct io n t ha t ca n b e m ad e b etweenth e Lam as th em se lv es an d t he co rp or at io ns with wh ic h the y were i nv ol ve d. The co urt cl ari fie d t hi s o rd er: “ The y canco ns id er the ev id en ce, tho ug h fo r th e pu rp os e o f de te rm in in g wh o wer e th e p art ie s t o t he curren cy ex ch an ge ag reem en t an d wh ethe r orno t the re i s a l eg al di st in ct io n wh ic h c anbe m ad e b etweenth e Lam as an d Gl ob al te k a ndth es e o th er co rp or at io ns .” Evi de nc e Ru le 40 8 c ov ers th e admis si bi li ty of ev id en ce o f “ co m pr om is e an d of fers to co m

pr om is e”: (a) Pr oh ib it edus es . Evi de nc e o f th e fo ll owi ng is no t ad m is si bl e o n be ha lf o f an y

pa rty, whenoff

eredto pro ve li ab il it y

for , in va li di ty of, oram ou ntof acla im

th atwas d is pu te d a s t o v al id it y or a m ou nt , or t o im pe ach th ro ug h apri orin co ns is te ntst at em en t o r co nt rad ic ti on : (1 ) fu rn is hi ng or o ffer in g o r pr om is in g t o fu rn is h— or acce pt in g o r of

feri ng or p ro m is in g t o a ccep t— a v al uabl e co ns id erat io n i n c om

pr om is in g o r at te m

pt in g t o co m pr om is e th e cl ai m ; an d (2 ) co nduc t o r st at em en ts m ad e in co m pr om is e ne go ti at io ns reg ard in g t he cla im , exc ep t wh enoff eredin a cri m in al cas e an d t he ne go ti at io ns rel at edto a cl ai m by a p ub li c o ffi ce o r ag en cy

inth e ex erci se of r eg ul at ory , in ve st ig at iv e, oren fo rcem en t au th or ity .
47(b ) Perm it te d u se s. Th is rul e d oe s n otrequi re ex cl us io n i f th e

ev id en ce i s o ffer edfor

pu rp os es no t p ro hi bi te d b y subd iv is io n (a ). Exa m pl es of p erm is si bl e p ur

po se s i nc lu de pro vi ng a witne ss ’s bi as or pr ejud ic e; ne ga ti ng a co nt en ti on of u ndue de la y ; an d p ro vi ng aneffo rt to ob st ru cta cri m in al in ve st ig at io n o r pr os ecu ti on . Fed . R. Evi d. 4 08 (em

ph as is ad de d) . As the un de rli ne d t ex t d em on st rat es , th e cl ai m m us t b e d is pu te d i n s om e way be fo re Ev id en ce Ru le 40 8's pro sc rip ti on s t ak e eff ect . See Fed . R. Evi d. 4 08 advi so ry co m m it te e’s no te s (“ The po li cy co ns id erat io ns whi chun de rli e th e ru le do no t co m e in to pl ay

when th e eff

ort i s t o i nduc e a cre di to r to set tl e anadm it te dl y du e am ou ntfora le ss er s um . . . . Henc e th e ru le requi res th atth e cl ai m be di sp ut ed as to eit he r va li di ty or am ou nt .”); 2 Wein st ei n’s Fe de ral Evi de nc e § 40 8.0 6 (2 d e d. 20 10 ) (“ The [Adv is ory

Co m mit te e’s] N ot e requi res a care fu l d is ti nc ti on be twee n a fran k d is cl os ur e dur in g t he co ur se of n eg ot ia ti on s— su chas, ‘All rig ht , I was ne gl ig en t. Let ’s tal k abo utda m ag es ’ (in adm is si bl e)— an d the les s co m

m on si tu at io n i n wh ic h b ot h t he va li di ty of th e cl ai m an d t he am ou ntof d am ag es are adm it te d— ‘O f co ur se , I owe youth e m on ey , bu t u nl es s you’re wi ll in g t o s et tl e fo r le ss , y ou ’ll h av e to su e m e fo r it ’ (ad m is si bl e).”) ; s ee al so Prei s v . Lexi ng to n In s. Co ., 27 9 F . App ’x 94 0, 9 42 –4 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) ; Dal li s v . Aetn a Life Ins . Co., 7 68 F.2 d 1 30 3, 1 30 6– 07 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ).

48The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t the Lam as , in cl ud in g Os car S r., di d n otdi sp ut e

th e d eb t; th ey

ackno wled ge d i ts ex is te nc e an d t ha t the y were l iabl e fo r it s pa ym en t. Thi s d et erm in at io n i s a s ub si di ary fin di ng of f actun de r Evi de nc e Ru le 10 4( a), Fed . R. Evi d. 1 04 (a) (“ Prel im in ary qu es ti on s co nc ern in g t he . . . ex is te nc e of a pr iv il eg e o r th e adm is si bi li ty of ev id en ce s ha ll be de te rm in edby the co urt . . . .”), an d we m ay ov erturn t hi s fi nd in g o nl y forcle ar erro r, Ci ty of Tus cal oo sav. Harc ro s C he m s., In c., 15 8 F .3d54 8, 5 56 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). W e fi nd no su cherro r he re an d c orres po nd in gl y fin d tha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e p ur po rte d s et tl em en t n eg ot ia ti on s.

B. Osc ar Sr. al so co nt en ds th atMo li no s d idno t p res en t s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o ho ldhi m li ab le forMejia ’s act io ns . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t M ol in os pr es en te d s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce t o s ho w th atOsca r Sr. rat ifi edMejia ’s act io ns when he pe rs on al ly ackn owl ed ge d the de btto Mejia . On ap pe al , Osca r Sr. arg ue s tha t Meji a h adne it he r th e ap pa ren t au th or it y to en ga ge inth e tr an sa ct io n o n h is be ha lf, no r was th ere e vi de nc e th athe rat ifi edMejia ’s act io ns an d t he refo re as su m ed

49li ab il it y . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t Os car S r. m ay be li ab le un de r a 2 7 rat ifi cat io n t he ory . 2 8

“ Rat ifi cat io n o f anag reem en t o ccu rs wher e a p ers on ex pr es sl y or i m pl ie dl y ad op ts anactor c on tra cten te redin to inhi s o r he r be ha lf b y an ot he r witho ut au th or it y .” Deut sc he Cred itCo rp . v. Pen in ge r, 60 3 S o. 2 d 5 7, 5 8 (F la . 5th Di st . Ct . App . 19 92 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . The p rin ci pa l m us t h av e fu ll kn owl ed ge of t he in it ia ll y un au th or iz edag en ts ’ co nduc t an d app ro ve of t ha t co nduc t. Fra nk en m ut h Mu t. In s. Co . v. Ma ga ha , 76 9 S o. 2 d 1 01 2, 1 02 1– 22 (Fl a. 20 00 ). Mo li no s p res en te d s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce t o p ro ve anex pl ic itrat ifi cat io n. It pr es en te d e vi de nc e o f a co nv ers at io n b etweenMejiaan d Os car S r. du rin g wh ic h Osc ar Sr. co m

mitte d h im se lf t o t he co nt ract . Mejia t es ti fie d, I reque st edto go see Osca r Lam a, Sr., th e fat he r, an d h e rec ei ve d m e an d h e to ldm e n otto ha ve an y do ub t wh at so ev er; th atth ey wou ld pe rs on al ly sol ve th atpro bl em ; tha t I h adwork edwith t he m inhi s ba nk , andth atI was a ware o f hi s fi na nc ia l an d m or al so lv en cy ; an d th atun de r no cir cu m st an ce wo ul d t he y lo okba d o n a nyon e, ev en th ou gh he ha d t o u se hi s re se rv es forhi s o ldag e.
M oli nos ’s cou nse l s ti pul at ed t hatOsc ar Sr. di d no t gra nt Me

j iaexp re ss aut hor it y to en te r t he 2 7 con tr act . Osc arSr. al so c ont end s t hatth e r at if ic at ion is sue was a n ew t heo ry pre sen te d f or the fi rs t t ime 2 8 attr ia l a nd thatwe c ann ot con si derth is cl ai m bec aus e M oli nos di d no t mov e t o amend i ts complai nt at tr ia l u nde r Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 15( b). T he d is tr ic t c ourt i m pli ci tl y rej ect ed t his ar gum entinit s M ar ch 1 9, 2009 ru li ng on th e motio n f or j udgm entas a matt erof la w. Fr om

th e pl ead ings, we se e t his as fa ir ly pre sen te d an d f

indno r eas on t o di sturb th e di stri ctcourt ’s j udgm ent . As sub par t II I .B, supra , demonstra te d, t he d is tr ic t c ourt wa s pe rf ect ly cap abl e of

pr eventi ng Mol ino s f

rom arguin g new th eor ie s ra is ed f or the fi rs t t ime at tr ia l; th e c ourt’ s f ai lur e t o rule si m il ar ly on t his is sue spe aks volumes. 50Whe n a sk edwhet he r Osc ar Sr. “ in di cat e[d ] th atth es e ch eck s wo ul d b e m ad e g oo d

pe rs on al ly by

th e Lam a fam il y ,” Meji a an swe redinth e aff irmativ e. He ag ai n st at edth is po in t o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n. 2 9 Oth er t es ti m on y

pro vi de d c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce fo r th is pro po si ti on . Bo nn el ly, Mo li no s’s cu rren cy bro ke r, te st ifi edth atsh e h adpre vi ou sl y do ne bu si ne ss with t he Lam as , in cl ud in g t he fathe r; s he ha d n ev er d on e b us in es s wi th Exp ert ekor C hi ps te k. Sh e te st ifi ed : “ Eve ry ti m e I d o b us in es s wi th th em , I wou ld do bu si ne ss with t he Lam as ; tha t i s, the fathe r, Osca r, an d t he so n, Ca rlo s Lam a.” Sh e fu rth er t es ti fie d t ha t Carlo s Lam a in di cat edth atth e Lam a fam il y , in cl ud in g Osc ar Sr., wo ul d c ov er the ba d c he ck s. Re yno so als o t es ti fie d t ha t Os car S r. di d no t d en y li ab il it y for th e ch eck s dur in g the 20 06 m eet in g. Al th ou gh th is factalo ne m ig htno t h av e es tabl is he d l iabi li ty, itpro vi de s yet an ot he r in fere nc e in fav orof ho ld in g Os car S r. li ab le . Aga in stth is arg um en t, Os car S r. cl ai m s tha t h e can no t b e li ab le be cau se he di d n otacce ptan y

be ne fitfro m

th e co nt ract . This arg um en t s uf fers fro m two fla ws, o ne co nc ep tu al an d o ne factua l. Co nc ep tu al ly, th e Fl or id a cas e law refer s t o acce pt an ce o f be ne fit s t o p ro ve rat ifi cat io n wh ere the re i s n o p ro of of e xp li ci t
T he t ra nsc ri pt re ads : 2 9 Q. Si r, I want t o f

ocu s onOsc ar

R. Lama fo r am om ent , th e f ather . Now i f I under st ood your t est imony

yeste rday, is i t yourte st imony th athe was par t o f t his tr ans act ion ? A. T hat ’s whathe tol d me. 51rat ifi cat io n. Th e cas e Osc ar Sr. ci te s s ta te s, “ Rat ifi cat io n, as ap pl ie d t o t he law o f

ag en cy , is th e ad op ti on or a ffi rm an ce b y a pr in ci pa l o f th e act s o f hi s ag en t, ei th er ex pr es sl y , as b y

a writ te n a ct , or i m

pl ie dl y , as b y

acce pt an ce o f th e b en efi ts of t he co nt ract .” Sp urrie r v. Un it edBan k, 3 59 So . 2d90 8, 9 10 (Fl a. 1s t Di st . Ct. Ap p. 19 78 ) (em

ph as is ad de d) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m itte d) . This pa ss ag e su gg es ts th atwhen , as h ere, the pri nc ip al ex pl ic it ly rati fie s the ag en t’s work, the pl ai nt iff

ne edno t p ro ve th atth e p rin ci pa l re ta in edanim pr op er b en efi t. Factua ll y , hi s ar gu m en t al so fai ls . OscarSr. cl ai m s tha t, b ecau se Mo li no s ne ve r in tro du cedev id en ce tha t i ts fun ds wentdi rect ly to Os car S r.’s ba nkacco un t, th e jury cou ldno t re as on ab ly findth atOscar Sr. b en efi tt edfro m th e tr an sa ct io n. Here, Mo li no s fu lfi ll edit s s id e o f th e co nt ractby writ in g c he ck s p ay ab le to sev eral th irdparti es , at the di rect io n o f th e Lam as ’ br ok er, Me jia. Meji a, in tu rn , ex pl ai ne d t ha t the Lam as oft enreque st edth atth e ch eck s b e p ay ab le to th ei r m es se ng ers , who wou ldcas h t he ch eck s ri gh t away ; o n t hi s o ccas io n, h e b el ie ve d th atsev eral ch eck s wer e p ay ab le to th es e m es se ng ers . Whe n c om bi ne d wi th te st im on y th atth e Lam as were the real pri nc ip al s t o t he tra ns act io n, a ju ry co ul d reas on ab ly con cl ud e th atth e m es se ng ers co m pl et edth ei r ta sk s an d tran sp orte d t he ch eckpro ceed s t o t he Lam as , in cl ud in g Os car S r. V. 52W e AFFIRM th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t as to Osca r Sr., b ut VACATE

th e jud gm en t as to Carl os an d Os car J r. SO ORDE RED.

53