### F I LE D

. U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D E C E M B E R 20, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12698 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -014 05 -C V -U W C -E V A N L O C K W O O D , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J E R E L . B E A S L E Y , J . G R E G G A L L E N , W I L L I A M G . O 'R E A R , J R ., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 20, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

V a n L oc kw ood, pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l of hi s di ve r s i ty a c t i on on the gr ound tha tL oc kw ood e ndor s e d ac he c k c ont a i ni ng a r e l e a s e , the r e by r e l e a s i ng hi s c l a i m s a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s . O n appe a l , L oc kw ood c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s r e f us a l t o e nt e rde f

aul tj udgm e nta ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s , i t s f

a i l ur e t o e nt e rs um m a ry j udgm e nti n hi s f a vor , a nd i t s di s m i s s a l of h is c la im s . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o rth m o r e f

u llyb e lo w , w e a f

f irm in p a rt a n d v a c a te a n d r e m a n d in p a rt. I. P roce d u ralH i st ory L ockw oo d, pro se, fi l ed a c om pl ai ntchal l engi ng the att orneys ’ fe es aw ar ded in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e s e ttle m e n t o f am a s s to rt litig a tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, T ol be rtv. M ons a nt o C o. , a l l e gi ng tha the w a s ac l i e nti n the c a s e a nd tha tthe a tt orne y s ’ f

e e s w e r e pr i m af

a c i e e xc e s s i ve a nd notba r ga i ne d f ora tthe t i m e of c o n tr a c tin g a n d th a t h e r e s e rv e d th e r ig h t n o t to g iv e alie n o n th e s e ttle m e n t u n til he r e c ove r e d. C ont e m por a ne ous w i th hi s c om pl a i nt , L oc kw ood f i l e d am ot i on f

or s um m a ry j udgm e nt . T he c a s e w a s i ni t i a l l y a s s i gne d t o U . S . D i s tr i c tC ourtJ udge K ar on B ow dre. T he de f e nda nt s w e r e s e rve d w i th the s um m ons a nd c om pl a i nton J ul y 13, 2004 a nd f

a i l e d t o f i l e ar e s pons i ve pl e a di ng dur i ng the 20- da y pe r i od f ol l ow i ng se rvi ce . O n A ug ust3, 20 04 , L ockw oo d m ov ed for defaul tj ud gm ent , al l egi ng that3

th e d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o a n s w e rw i th i n th e t i me p e rmi tt e d b y Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 12( a ) ( 1) ( A ) . O n A ugus t9, 2004, the de f e nda nt s obj e c t e d t o L oc kw ood’ s m ot i on, p r o v id in g e v id e n c e th a t atim e lym o tio n w a s m a ile d to th e c le rk ’s o f f ic e o n J u ly 30, 2004. A f

t e rl e a rni ng tha tthe c l e rk’ s of f i c e di d notr e c e i ve the i rm ot i on, the de f e nda nt s s e nta nothe rc opy , w hi c h w a s f i l e d on A ugus t10, 2004. O n A ugus t12, 2 0 0 4 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s u m m a r ilyd e n ie d L o c k w o o d ’s m o tio n f o rd e f au lt. In thei r m ot i on , the defendant s m ov ed t o transfe r the ca se t o U . S . D i stri ct C o u rt J u d g e U . W . C le m o n f o rc o n s o lid a tio n w ith th e u n d e r ly in g M o n s a n to l i t i gat i on on the grou nd thatJudg e C l em on re t ai ned com pl et e j uri sdi ct i on ov er di s put e s c onc e rni ng the f i na l j udgm e nta nd or de ri n the M ons a nt o l i t i ga t i on. T he defe nd ant s a l so m ov ed t o d i sm i ss , i nt eral i a, on the grou nd of re l ea se and accord a nd s a t i s f

a c t i on be c aus e L oc kw ood e ndor s e d ac he c k c ont a i ni ng ar e s tr i c t i ve en d o rsem en trel easi n g al l cl ai m s ag ai n sth i s att o rn eys. In su p p o rto f th ei r rel ease defe nse, the defendant s a tt ac hed t o thei r m ot i on a c op y of an end orse d $ 50 0 check pa y abl e t o V a n C . L oc kw ood a nd a n a f f i da vi tby E dga rC . G e nt l e , I I I , the s e tt l e m e ntf

und C l a i m s A dm i ni s tr a t or , s t a t i ng tha ta l though notpl a i nl y vi s i bl e , the e n d o r s e d a d v a n c e p a y m e n t c h e c kc o n ta in e d th e f o llo w in g r e le a s e la n g u a g e :

‘ Bye n d o r s i n g th i s c h e c k , a n d a f t e rb e i n g i n f

o rme d f u l l y b y my l aw yer, I h ereb y rel ease, fo r m ysel f an d m y h ei rs an d rep resen t at i v es, a ll c la im s a g a in s t M o n s a n to C o m p a n y , S o lu tia , I n c ., a n d P h a rm a c ia C orpo ra t i on and thei r a ff i l i at es t o the ful l ext entperm i tt ed un der4

fe dera l or st at e l aw pu rs uantt o the S ett l em entA gree m entand F i nal J u d g m e n t a n d O r d e rin T o lb e rt, e t a l. v . M o n s a n to C o m p a n y , e t a l., C as e N o. C V -01-C -140 7-S , U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt , N orthern D i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma . I n a d d i t i o n , I h e r e b y r e l e a s e , f o rmy s e l f

a n d my hei rs and repres ent at i ves, al l cl ai m s a gai nstthe T ol bertQ ual i fi ed S ett l em entF un d, the S ett l em entA dm i ni stra t or of thatQ ual i fi ed S e ttle m e n t F u n d , a n d m y la w y e r ( s ) a n d th e ira f f ilia te s to th e f

u ll e x te n t p e rm itte d u n d e rf e d e r a l o rs ta te la w .’ L o c k w o o d r e n e w e d h is m o tio n f o rd e f au lt a n d a ls o m o v e d th e c o u rt to

“ di sm i ss ” the defendant ’ s f i l i ng because i tw as un t i m el y. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed a l l pe ndi ng m ot i ons a s m oot , di s m i s s i ng the c a s e f orl a c k of

f e de r a l que s t i on or di ve r s i ty j ur i s di c t i on. T he di s tr i c tc ourtul t i m a t e l y r e i ns t a t e d the c a s e ba s e d on di ve r s i ty j ur i s di c t i on. L oc kw ood the n r e ne w e d hi s m ot i on f orde f aul tj udgm e nt a n d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e w ith le a v e to r e - f

ile a f te re n try o f

as c h e d u lin g o r d e rp u r s u a n t to F e d .R .C iv .P . 1 6 ( b ) . L o c k w o o d th e n f

ile d th e s a m e s u b s ta n tiv e m o tio n a n d s o u g h t atr a n s f e rto th is C ou rt , w hi ch the di stri ctcourtconstrued as an i nt er l ocut ory app ea l . T he ca se w as the n s t a y e d f

orr e s ol ut i on of

the appe a l , w hi c h w e di s m i s s e d f orl a c k of j ur i s di c t i on. F ol l ow i ng ou r di sm i ss al , L ockw oo d am ended h i s c om pl ai ntt o see k rec ov ery o f $ 1 .5 b illio n f

r o m th e d e f

e n d a n ts b a s e d o n th ir d p a rtys ta n d in g . T h e d e f e n d a n ts r e s p o n d e d , a d o p tin g th e irp r e v io u s m o tio n to tr a n s f e ra n d d is m is s , a n d m o v e d to s tr i ke the a m e nde d c om pl a i nta s i m pr ope runde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 15( a ) . L oc kw ood5

f ile d ar e s p o n s e , a f

te rw h ic h th e r e c o r d s h o w s n o a c tiv ityin th e c a s e u n til appr oxi m a t e l y s e ve n m onths l a t e r , w he n the di s tr i c tc ourt , pe rJ udge C l e m on, ent er ed an order st at i ng thatthe ca se w as transfe rr ed t o h i m and d i sm i ss i ng the c a s e ba s e d on L oc kw ood’ s r e l e a s e of c l a i m s a ga i ns tthe de f

e nda nt s . L oc kw ood f ile d am o tio n f

o rr e h e a r in g o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n c h a lle n g in g th e c o u rt’s d is m is s a l, w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d . T h is ap p e a l f o llo w e d . I I . D e f a ul t J udg m e nt L oc kw ood’ s c ha l l e nge t o the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l s of hi s m ot i ons f

or de f aul tappe a r s t o be ba s e d s ol e l y on the de f e nda nt s ’ f

a i l ur e t o a ns w e rw i thi n 20 da y s . W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of am ot i on f

orde f aul tj udgm e ntf

orabus e of di s c r e t i on. M i t c he l l v. B r ow n & W i l l i a m s on T oba c c o C orp. , 294 F . 3d 1309, 1316 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). W e have caut i on ed thatdefaul tshou l d b e use d spari ng l y and that i ti s t o o h a r s h , e x c e p ti n e x tr e me c i r c u ms t a n c e s . I d . a t1 3 1 6 - 1 7 . Ex tr e me c ir c u m s ta n c e s ju s tif

y in g th e e n try o f

d e f au lt ju d g m e n t a r e n o t p r e s e n t in th is c a s e . T he defendant s’ m ot i on w as fi l ed i n the di stri ctcourton e w ee k aft erthei r answ er w as du e. S ee F ed. R . C i v. P . 12 (a )( 1)(A ). T hey a l l eged and p rovi ded evi dence that the y or i gi na l l y m a i l e d the m ot i on be f or e the de a dl i ne , buttha tthe m ot i on w a s not do cket ed by the cl erk. F i nal l y, L ockw oo d d oes notshow ho w he w as prej ud i ce d by aw e e k’ s de l a y i n the de f e nda nt s ’ f

i l i ng. A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not6

abus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng L oc kw ood’ s m ot i ons f orde f aul tdue t o the d e f e n d a n ts ’ f

a ilu r e to f

ile th e irm o tio n w ith in 2 0 d a y s a f te rth e y w e r e s e rv e d . T o the e xt e nttha tL oc kw ood a r gue s tha tde f aul tw a s appr opr i a t e be c aus e the d efen d an t s fai l ed t o an sw er, F ed . R . C i v . P . 1 2 (b ) al l o w s a n u m b er o f d efen ses, i nc l udi ng f

a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m upon w hi c h r e l i e f c a n be gr a nt e d, t o be m a de by m o tio n . F e d .R .C iv .P . 1 2 ( b ) . S u c h am o tio n a lte r s th e tim e in w h ic h a n a n s w e ris du e unt i l af

t erthe di stri ctcourtdeni es the m ot i on or po stpo nes i t s di sposi t i on . S ee F ed . R . C i v . P . 1 2 (a)(4 )(A ). B ecau se th e d efen d an t s fi l ed a m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss a s s e rt i ng, i nt e ra l i a , f

a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m upon w hi c h r e l i e f c a n be gr a nt e d, the de f e nda nt s w e r e notr e qui r e d t o f i l e a n a ns w e runt i l the di s tr i c tc ourtdi s pos e d of the i rm ot i on. I d. T hus , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng L ockw oo d’ s m ot i on s f

or defaul tdu e t o the defendant s’ fa i l ure t o fi l e an answ er .

I I I . D i s m i s s al W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f ac o m p lia n t f

o rf a ilu r e to s t a t e ac l a i m upon w hi c h r e l i e f c a n be gr a nt e d, a c c e pt i ng the a l l e ga t i ons i n the c o m p la in t a s tru e a n d c o n s tru in g th e m in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p la in tif

f . F in . S e c . A s s u r a n c e , I n c . v . S te p h e n s , I n c ., 4 5 0 F .3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . H ow e ve r , w e do notr e a c h the m e r i t s of the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on r e ga r di ng the re l ea se because w e hol d thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o fol l ow the prop erprocedure7

i n ru l i n g o n th e d efen d an t s’ m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss. A s age ne r a l rul e , “ [ w ] he ne ve raj udge c ons i de r s m a tt e r s out s i de the pl e a di ngs i n a12( b) ( 6) m ot i on, tha tm ot i on i s the r e by c onve rt e d i nt o aR ul e 56 S um m a ry J udgm e ntm ot i on. ” T rus tm a rk I ns . C o. v. E S L U , I nc . , 299 F . 3d 1265, 1267 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ; F e d. R . C i v. P . 12( b) ; D a y v. T a y l or , 400 F . 3d 1272, 1275- 76 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . “W h e n th a t c o n v e r s io n o c c u r s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m u s t c o m p ly w i th the re qu i re m ent s of Rul e 56. T he di stri ctcourti s r equi re d t o n ot i fythe part i es th a t th e m o tio n h a s b e e n c o n v e rte d , a n d g iv e th e p a rtie s 1 0 d a y s in w h ic h to su p p lem en t th e r ec o rd .” T ru stm ar k , 2 9 9 F .3 d at 1 2 6 7 (c it atio n s o m itted ). “[W ]e ar e c om pel l ed by ou r ow n p re ce dent s t o n ot e s ua spon t e thatthe courtbel ow fa i l ed t o a dhe r e t o the di c t a t e s of F e d. R . C i v. P . 56( c ) . . . . ” G r i f f i th v. W a i nw r i ght , 772 F . 2d 82 2, 82 4 (11 th C i r. 19 85 ). W e have “ consi st ent l y e nforced the stri ctno t i ce re qu i re m ent s of Rul es 12 (b) and 56 , cr ea t i ng a bri gh t -l i ne rul e: If a di stri ctcourt f a i l s t o c om pl y w i th the t e n- da y not i c e r e qui r e m e nt , the c a s e w i l l be r e ve r s e d a nd r e m a n d e d s o th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m a y p r o v id e th e n o n - m o v in g p a rtyw ith a de qua t e not i c e . ” J one s v. A ut o. I ns . C o. of H a rt f or d, C onn. , 917 F . 2d 1528, 1532 (11th C i r. 19 90 ) ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). I n di s m i s s i ng the c a s e , the di s tr i c tc ourtc ons i de r e d the c opy of the $500 advance payment c heck and G ent l e’ s a ff i davi texpl ai ni ng the re l ea se l angu age,8

w hi c h w e r e a tt a c he d t o the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s . B y doi ng s o, the d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n w a s c o n v e rte d in to am o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t u n d e rR u le 12( b) . S e e J one s , 917 F . 2d a t1532. T he di s tr i c tc ourt , how e ve r , f a i l e d t o gi ve L oc kw ood not i c e of

the c onve r s i on a nd a n opportuni ty t o s uppl e m e ntthe r e c or d. W e have re cogn i ze d an except i on t o the conv er si on and n ot i ce rul es w here “ap la in tif

f r e f e r s to ad o c u m e n t in its c o m p la in t, th e d o c u m e n t is c e n tr a l to its c la im , its c o n te n ts a r e n o t in d is p u te , a n d th e d e f e n d a n t a tta c h e s th e d o c u m e n t to its m ot i on t o d i sm i ss . ” F i n. S ec . A ss urance, 45 0 F . 3d at12 64 . A s t o w hether a d o c u m e n ti s c e n tr a l t o th e p l a i n t i f f’ s c a s e , i n F i n a n c i a l S e c u r i ty As s u r a n c e , we c o n s id e r e d w h e th e rth e p la in tif f w o u ld h a v e to o f

f e rth e d o c u m e n t to p r o v e h is c a s e . I d. A doc um e nti s undi s put e d i f i t s authe nt i c i ty i s notc ha l l e nge d. D a y , 400 F . 3 d a t 1 2 7 6 . I n a d d i t i o n , c o n v e r s i o n wi th o u tn o t i c e i s h a rm l e s s i f th e r e c o r d s h o ws th a t th e p a rtie s u n d e r s to o d th a t c o n v e r s io n w o u ld ta k e p la c e a n d m a d e a ll a r g u m e n ts a n d s u b m itte d a ll o f th e d o c u m e n ts th e y w o u ld h a v e s u b m itte d w ith suff i ci entno t i ce . D eni s v. L i berty M ut . Ins. C o. , 79 1 F . 2d 84 6, 85 0 (11 th C i r. 1986) . N e i the rs i tua t i on i s pr e s e nti n thi s c a s e . T he c he c k a nd i t s r e l e a s e l a ngua ge do notne e d t o be of

f e r e d by L oc kw ood i n or de rt o pr ove hi s c a s e ; the y a r e r e l e va nt t o the de f

e nda nt s ’ a f

f i rm a t i ve de f

e ns e . B oth i n hi s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on be f or e the di s tr i c tc ourta nd i n hi s br i e f s on appe a l , L oc kw ood ha s di s put e d theBe causethe district court never addresse d the merits of a ny of Lockwood’ s motions for 1 summary judgment, we dec line to consider the propriety of summary

judgment in L ockwood’ s favor in the first instance. 9 e xi s t e nc e of

the r e l e a s e l a ngua ge on the c he c k, i nc l udi ng m a ki ng a s s e rt i ons tha tthe copy pres ent ed by the defendant s w as al t er ed or a f orgery . In addi t i on , the re cord d o e s n o t s h o w th a t L o c k w o o d u n d e r s to o d th a t c o n v e r s io n w o u ld ta k e p la c e . In li g h t o f th e f

o re g o in g , w e a ff

irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d en ial o f L o ck w o o d ’s m ot i on s f

or a def aul tj ud gm ent , bu tvaca t e the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderof di sm i ss al a nd r e m a nd f

orf urthe rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. 1 A FFI R M ED I N PA R T A N D VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T.