FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 9, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14611 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 1 2 0 6 - C V- AJ D A N V A N T R A N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C I T Y O F M I A M I , D ef endant -C ross D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e , L A N G O E Q U I P M E N T S E R V I C E S , I N C ., D ef endant -C ross C la im a n t- A p p e lle e .

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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 9, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es.Tran’ s initi al complaint was brought only ag ainst the City . His amende d complaint 1 a dd e d L ang o a s an additi on a l de fend ant. 2 P E R C U R I A M: D a n V a n T r a n, pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e nti n f

a vorof the C i ty of

M i a m i ( “ C i ty ” ) a nd i t s c ontr a c t or , L a ngo Eq u i p me n tSe rv i c e s , I n c . ( “ La n g o ” ) , d i s mi s s i n g h i s c l a i m, b r o u g h tu n d e r4 2 U . S. C. § 1 98 3, thatthe defendant s deni ed hi m procedural du e proces s of l aw . T ra n 1
a l l e ge d tha tthe de f

e nda nt s a c t e d unde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w a nd “ r e c kl e s s l y a nd m al i ci ou sl y” depri ved h i m of du e proces s of l aw by dem ol i shi ng a s tructure that w a s on pr ope r ty tha the ow ne d w i thoutgi vi ng hi m the pr ope rnot i c e a nd he a r i ng the du e proces s r equi re d. In grant i ng sum m ary j ud gm ent , the di stri ctcourt c onc l ude d tha tT r a n ha d notbe e n de pr i ve d of pr oc e dur a l due pr oc e s s be c a us e ( 1) th e C ity g a v e h im s u f

f ic ie n t n o tic e th a t h is p r o p e r ty w a s in n o n - c o m p lia n c e w ith th e b u ild in g c o d e a n d w o u ld b e d e m o lis h e d , ( 2 ) a f o ru m in w h ic h to c h a lle n g e th is n o n -co m p l i an ce fi n d i n g , an d (3 ) am p l e t i m e t o co rrectco d e v i o l at i o n s. I n hi s br i e f

on appe a l , T r a n doe s note xpl i c i t l y que s t i on the c our t ’ s de c i s i on gr a nt i ng s um m a r y j udgm e nt . T he onl y a r gum e nthi s br i e f a dva nc e s i s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tus e d “ t e c hni c a l i t i e s t o c i r c um ve ntthe C ons t i tut i on a nd m a de de c i s i ons c ontr a r y t o the s pi r i tof the C ons t i tut i on. T he br i e f ne i the rr e f

e r s t o none of hi s s pe c i f

i c c l a i m s norc i t e s the l e ga l ba s i s f orhi s a s s e r t i on.3

T he f a i l ur e of a n appe l l a t e t o c ha l l e nge a tr i a l c our t ’ s rul i ng i n hi s ope ni ng br i e f on appe a l ope r a t e s a s a n a ba ndonm e ntof hi s c l a i m tha tthe tr i a l c our t ’ s rul i ng shou l d b e s etas i de. “ [T ] he l aw i s by now w el l se t t l ed i n t hi s C i rc ui tthata l egal cl ai m or ar gu m entthathas notbeen bri ef ed before the courti s dee m ed abando ned and i t s m er i t s w i l l no tbe addres se d. T he F eder al R ul es of A pp el l at e P roce du re p la in ly r e q u ir e th a t a n ap p e lla n t’s b r ie f ‘c o n ta in , u n d e rap p r o p r ia te h e a d in g s a n d in th e o r d e ri n d i c a t e d a s t a t e m e n to f th e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f

o rr e v i e w. ’ ” Ac c e s s No w, I nc . v. S outhw e s tA i r l i ne s C o. , 385 F . 3d 1324, 1330 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( c i t a t i on om i t t e d) . D ue t o T r a n’ s f a i l ur e t o c ha l l e nge the e ntr y of s um m a r y j udgm e nti n the ope ni ng br i e f

, thi s appe a l i s due t o be di s m i s s e d. B e c a us e T r a n i s pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , w e pr oc e e d a l t e r na t i ve l y t o the que s t i on of w hether the di stri ctcourterre d i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary j ud gm ent . W e a nsw erthat que s t i on i n the ne ga t i ve . F i r s t , T r a n f a i l e d t o m e e thi s bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of

hi s c a s e ; he ne i the ri ntr oduc e d e vi de nc e , norpoi nt e d t o a ny a lr e a d y in th e r e c o r d , th a t m ig h t e s ta b lis h a n y o f th e e le m e n ts o f

a n y o f h is c la im s . S e c ond, the r e c or d di s c l os e s tha the w a s a f f or de d c ons t i tut i ona l l y a de qua t e due pr oc e s s be f

or e hi s pr ope r ty w a s t a ke n: ( 1) the C i ty c om m uni c a t e d w i th hi m a bout hi s non- c om pl i a nc e w i th the bui l di ng c ode a tl e a s tf i ve t i m e s be tw e e n 1997 a nd 20 01 ; and (2) he had suffi ci entno t i ce thathi s bui l di ng w ou l d b e dem ol i shed, an4

oppor tuni ty t o c or r e c tthe de f i c i e nc i e s a nd s a ve the bui l di ng, a nd m a ny oppor tuni t i e s t o be he a r d. AF F I RME D.