FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 9, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 06- 13622, 06- 14073, 06- 14722, 06- 15999

N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e t N o . 0 4
- 0 1 3 4 4
- CV- J
- 1 6
- HTS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , e x r e l., G A B E K A I M O W I T Z , a n a tto rn e y q u i ta m , p r o s e , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s R O B E R T A N S L E Y , a s a ge ntf

orO r l a ndo N e i ghborhood I m pr ove m e ntC orpor a t i on, B oc aC l ub A pa r tm e nt s f

orm a l l y a s A nvi l
- R i c ha r d A lle n G a r d e n s , I n c . a n d in d iv id u a lly , ORLAND O N EI GH BORHOO D I M PR OV EM ENT C O R P O R A T I O N ( “O N I C ” ) , B O C A C L U B A P A R T M E N T S , f orm a l l y i nc orpor a t e d pe rhaps w i th o th e rp r o p e r tie s , A N V I L
- R I C H A R D A L L E N G A R D E N S , I N C ., f .k .a . O N I C
- H o ld e n G a r d e n s , I n c . f .k .a . O N I C
- B o c aC lu b A p a r tm e n ts , I n c ., O R L A N D O , F L O R I D A , a m un i ci pal corporat i on , ei ther d ir e c tly o ra ls o b y R o b e r t A n s le y , a s its a g e n t, D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .Def endant Ansley

moved for summar

y judgment on the claims ag ainst him in the thre e 1 capacities in which he w as sued, including as an ag ent for Anvil, and Orla ndo moved for summar

y judgment. Accordingly, the district court’s entry of summary j u d gm ent was a n appealable final order a s toall of the pa

rtie s and we have jurisdic tio n ov er thi s a pp e al. 2 8 U .S. C. § § 1 29 1, 12 92 ; Atl. Fe d. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. B ly the Eastman Paine Webbe r, Inc., 890 F .2d 371, 375-76 (11th Cir. 1989). 2 ________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 9, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: I n the s e c ons ol i da t e d appe a l s , G abe K a i m ow i t z , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e a nd a s a qui t a m r e l a t oron be ha l f of the U ni t e d S t a t e s , c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a nt of s um m a ry j ud g m en t i n f a vorof the D e f e nda nt s , the C i ty of

O r l a ndo, F l or i daa nd R obe r t A ns l e y , i ndi vi dua l l y a nd a s a n a ge nt f or O rl an d o N e i ghborhood Im prov em entC o rp orat i on and A nv i l -R i char d A l l en G ar dens, Inc. (“ A nv i l ”) ( c ol l e c t i ve l y “ D e f

e nda nt s” )
. K a i m ow i t z f i l e d s ui ta ga i ns tthe D e f e nda nt s pur s ua nt 1 t o the F al se C l ai m s A ct(“ F C A ”) , 31 U
. S
. C
. §§ 37 29 -372 2, se eki ng t o rec ov er
m on eyaw ar ded b y the U ni t ed S t at es D epartm en t o f H ou si ng and U rban D e v e lo p m e n t ( “H U D ” ) to O r la n d o “f o rth e b u ild i n g o f 2 1 6 B o c aC lu b A p a r tm e n ts

. . . a n d fo r th e reh ab i l i t at i o n o f th o se l o w -i n co m e faci l i t i es i n 1 9 9 7
. ” H i s l aw su it f oc us e d on a H U D
- pr ovi de d, $1. 7 m i l l i on U rba n D ev el opm e ntA s s i s t a nc e G r a nt3

(“ U D A G ”), a $ 3 4 0 , 0 0 0 acco m p an yi n g lo a n f r o m th e C i ty o f O rl an d o “ w h i ch al so
m a y h a v e o r ig in a te d w ith H U D ,” a n d a$ 3 5 0 ,0 0 0 H o m e I n v e s tm e n t P a r tn e r s h ip lo a n ( “H O M E lo a n ” ) f

o rth e r e h ab ilita tio n o f

th e B o c aC lu b A p a r tm e n ts p r o je c t. F i r s t , K a i m ow i t z a r gue s tha tj us t i c e c a nnotbe s e rve d w hi l e the pr e s i d i ng j ud ge, U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ct Judg e S chl es i ng er , of the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f F lo r id a , o ra n y o th e rd is tr ic t c o u r t ju d g e f r o m th e M id d le D i s tr i c t of F l or i da , pr e s i de s ove r hi s c a s e . A c c or di ng t o K a i m ow i t z, Ju d ge S ch l esi n g er en t ered u n ex p l ai n ed o rd ers an d su m m ari l y d en i ed h i s m o t i o n s . H e al so su g g e s ts th a t Ju d g e S ch l esi n g er w as assi g n ed th i s case fo r th e sp eci fi c p u rp o se of de ny i ng r e l i e f

. H e c l a i m s tha tthe di s tr i c tj udge s of the M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i daha ve ke pthi s va r i ous F C A s ui t s “ unde rw r aps ” t o pr ot e c tthe C i ty of O r la n d o . J u d g e S c h le s in g e rr e je c te d e a c h o f

K a im o w itz ’s g r o u n d s f o rr e c u s a l. W e r e vi e w a j udge ’ s de c i s i on nott o r e c us e f or an abus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A m ed eo , 4 8 7 F
. 3 d 823, 828 ( 11th C i r . 2007)
. A f e de r a l j udge
s houl d di s qua l i f

y hi m s e l f

i n a ny pr oceed i n g i n w hi c h hi s i m pa r t i a l i ty m i ght
reaso n ab l y b e q u est i o n ed
. 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 4 5 5 (a). A fed eral j u d g e sh o u l d recu se hi m s e l f w he n, i nt e ra l i a , he “ ha s ape r s ona l bi a s orpr e j udi c e c onc e rni ng a p art y , or pe r s ona l know l e dge of

di s p u t ed ev i de nt i a ry f a c t s c onc e rni ng the pr oc e e di ng. ” 28 U .S .C . § 4 5 5 ( b ) ( 1 )
.4

U nd er28 U
. S
. C
. § 4 55 (a ), re cusal i s app ropri at e onl y i f “ an obj ec t i ve, di s i nt e r e s t e d, l a y obs e rve rf ul l y i nf orm e d of

the f a c t s unde r l y i ng the gr ounds on
w h ich re cu sa l w as so u g h t w o u lden tertain a s ig n ifica n t d o u b t ab o u t th e ju d g e’s i m pa r t i a l i ty . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a tt i , 337 F
. 3d 1 3 1 7 , 1321 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( c i t a t i on
an d q u o t at i o n o m i tt ed ). U n d er 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 4 5 5 (b )(1 ), “ [t ]h e b i as o r p rej u d i ce m u st be pe r s onal an d ex tr a

j udi c i a l
. ” A m a de o, 487 F
. 3d a t828 ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on
om i tt ed). It is w el l -s ett l ed that“ j ud i ci al rul i ng s a l on e a l m ostnever const i tut e a
va l i d ba s i s f

orabi a s orpa r t i a l i ty m ot i o n . ” L i t ek y v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 510 U
. S
. 540, 55 5 (19 94 ). K a im o w itz ’s a r g u m e n t th a t J u d g e S c h l e s in g e rs h o u ld h a v e r e c u s e d h im s e lf is w ith o u t m e r it. K a i m o w i t z h a s o f f e r e d n o th in g , o th e rth a n m e r e s p e c u la tio n , to
s uppor thi s c l a i m s c onc e rni ng J udge S c hl e s i nge r , norha s he s o m uc h a s a l l e ge d a fa ctthatw ou l d cal l Judg e S chl es i ng er ’ s i m partia l i ty i nt o q uest i on . T he orders denyi ng hi s var i ou s m o ti o ns and o ther a dv er se rul i ng s s i m pl y do n otprov i de a ba s i s t o s uppor tthe d i sq u al i f i c a t i on of

aj udge
. S e e L i t e ky , 510 U
. S
. a t555. S i m p l y p u t , th e d i stri ctj u d g e d i d n o tab u se h i s d i scret i o n b y re f u s i n g t o recu se h im s e lf
. W e l i kew i se ar e un pers uaded by K ai m ow i t z’ s ar gu m ent that th er e a re g e n u in e is s u e s o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t, p r e c lu d in g th e g r a n t o f s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. W e
r e v i ew a d i s tr i c tc our tor de rgr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo, vi e w i ng a l l of5

the f a c t s i n the r e c or d i n the l i g h t m os tf a vor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng pa r ty , a nd d r a w in g a ll in f

e r e n c e s in th a t p a r ty ’s f a v o r . F r e d e r ic k v . S p r in t/ U n i t e d M g m t. C o ., 2 4 6 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 1 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )
. W e w i l l n o t m a k e c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s o rw e ig h th e e v id e n c e . I d . “S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t i s o n ly p r o p e rif th e r e a r e n o g e n u in e d is p u te d is s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f

a c t , a n d th e m o v in g p a r ty is ent i t l ed t o j ud gm ent as a m att er of l aw . ” Id. W e gi ve cr edence to ev id en ce fa vo ri ng the no n-m ov antas w el l a s “ un contra di ct ed and u ni m peac hed” evi dence f r om di s i nt e r e s t e d w i tne s s es tha ts uppor t s the m ovi ng pa r ty . R e e ve s v. S a nde r s on P l um bi ng P rods. , Inc. , 53 0 U
. S
. 13 3 , 1 5 1 (200 0). In the cont extof sum m ary ju d g m en t , w e m u st l o o k at th e reco rd as a w h o l e, rev i ew i n g al l o f th e ev i d en c e in the re cord. Id . a t 1 50
. H ow ever , “ m er e c on cl usi on s a nd un supp ort ed fa ctual
a l l e ga t i ons a r e l e ga l l y i ns uf f i c i e ntt o de f

e a ta s um m a ry j u d g m entm ot i on. ” E l l i s v. E ng l and, 43 2 F
. 3d 13 21 , 13 26 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). T he F a l s e C l ai m s A c tpe rm i t s apr i va t e i ndi vi dua l t o f i l e a c i vi l a c t i on
a ga i ns t , a nd r e c ove rda m a ge s on be ha l f of the U ni t e d S t a t e s f

r om , a ny pe r s on w ho: ( 1) know i ngl y pr e sen t s , orc a us e s t o be pr e s e nt e d, t o a n of f i c e ror e mp l o y e e o f

th e U n i t e d St a t e s G o v e rn me n t. . . a f a l s e o rf r a u d u l e nt cl ai m for pay m ent o r ap p ro val ; (2) kno w i ng l y m akes , uses , or causes t o be m a de orus e d, af a l s e r e c or d ors t a t e m e ntt o ge taf a l s e or f r a u d u le n t c la im p a id o rap p r o v e d b y th e G o v e rn m e n t.6

31 U
. S
. C
. § 3 72 9(a) (1-2). “ K no w i ng l y” m ea ns thatth e d ef endanthad actual kno w l e d g e o f

th e i n f o rma t i o n , a c t e d i n d e l i b e r a t e i g n o r a n c e o f th e tru th o f

t he in f o rm a tio n , o ra c te d i n r e c k le s s d is r e g a r d o f th e tru th o f

th e in f o rm a tio n . I d . § 3 7 2 9 ( b )
.

“ T o est ab l i sh a cau se o f act i o n u n d er th e F al se C l ai m s A c t, a r e lat o r m u st pr ove thr e e e l e m e nt s : ( 1) af a l s e orf r a udul e ntc l a i m ; ( 2) w hi c h w as p resen t ed, or
c a us e d t o b e p r e s e n t e d , b y th e d e f e n d a n t t o th e U n i t e d St a t e s f o r p a y me ntor
ap p r o v a l ; ( 3 ) wi th th e k n o wl e d g e th a t th e c l a i m wa s f a l s e . ” Un i t e d St a t e s v . R &F P r o p e rt i es o f L ak e C o u n ty, In c. , 4 3 3 F
. 3 d 1 3 4 9 , 1 3 5 5 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ), cert. deni e d, 12 7 S. Ct
. 55 4 ( 20 06 )
. The app l i c abl e s t a tut e of l i mi t a t i on s pe r i od for a n
a c t i on br oughtunde rthe F C A i s no
m or e tha n 6 y e a r s a f

t e rth e d at e on w hi c h the vi ol a t i on of s e c t i on 3729 is c o m m itte d , o r. . . [ n o ] m o r e th a n 3 y e a r s a f te rth e d a te w h e n f

a c ts m a t e r i a l t o the r i g h t o f a c t i on a r e know n orr e a s onabl y s houl d ha ve b e e n k n o w n b y th e o f f ic ia l o f th e U n ite d S ta te s c h a r g e d w ith resp o n sib il i ty t o acti n the ci rc um st ance s, bu ti n n o eventm ore than 10 ye ar s af

t er the dat e on w hi ch the vi ol at i on i s com m i tt ed, w hi chever o c c u r s la s t. 3 1 U .S .C . § 3 7 3 1 ( b ) ( 1
- 2 )
. A s a n i ni t i al m a tt e r , a ny c l a i m w i th r e s pe c tt o the 1988 U D A G a nd the
a c c o m p a n y in g c i ty l o a n is s q u a r e ly b a rr e d b y th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . K a im o w itz7

f ile d th is la w s u it o n D e c e m b e r1 7 , 2 0 0 2 , w h ic h w a s w e ll p a s t th e te n - y e a rs ta tu te
o f lim ita tio n s . T o the e xt e ntK a i m ow i t z ’ s l a w s ui tw a s n o t ba rr e d by the s t a tut e of l i m i t at i o n s, th e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p er ly g r an t ed su m m ary j u d g m en tb ecau se K a i m ow i t z f

a i l e d t o pr ovi de a ny e vi de nc e of a fal se c l a i m by the D e f e nda nt s t o the U n ite d S ta te s . T h e D e f e n d a n ts f ile d a f f i d a v its f r o m v a r io u s in d iv id u a ls e x p lic itly de ny i ng the pr e s e nt a t i on of af a l s e c l a i m t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i th r e ga r d t o the tr a n s a c tio n s s u rr o u n d in g th e B o c aC lu b p r o je c t. K a im o w itz f

ile d n o th in g in oppos i t i o n t o t he s w orn r e pr e s e nt a t i ons m a de i n the a f f i da vi t s . “ T he s ubm i s s i on of a [ fa l se ] cl ai m i s . . . the si ne qu a non of a F al se C l ai m s A ctvi ol at i on . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s , e x e l
. A t k i n s v . M c I nt e e r , 470 F
. 3d 1350, 1357 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( quot a t i on
a n d c ita tio n o m itte d )
. “W ith o u t th e p r e s e n tm e n t o f
. . . a c la im , . . . th e r e i s s i m p ly
n o t a c tio n ab le d a m a g e . . . .” I d
. T hrou gh ou tthi s l i t i gat i on , K ai m ow i t z has cl ai m ed, w i tho utany f ac tual
s uppo r t , th a t th e D e f

e n d a n t s ’ a l l e g e d w r o n g d o i n g i n d e v e l o p i n g , f i n a n c i n g , a nd
m ark et i n g th e B o ca C l u b co n st i tu t ed a fal se cl ai m p resen t ed t o th e U n i t ed S t at es. H o w e v e r , h e h a s n o t c ite d o ra lle g e d af a ls e o rf

r a u d u le n t c la im , k n o w in g ly pr e s e nt e d orc a us e d t o be pr e s e nt e d by the D e f e nda nt s t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s f or paym entor approv al
. T o survi ve sum m ary j ud gm ent , K ai m ow i t z m u stoffe r m oreNo judg e in re gular ser vice on the Court having requeste d that the Court be polled on 2 initial hearingen banc , the Petition for Hea ringEn Ba

nc is DENIED. Fe d. R. A pp. P. 35; 11th C ir. R. 35-5. We DENY Kaimowitz ’s M otion for Reconsideration of the si ng le-judg e order, entered on July 13, 2007, returninghis Motio n t o M odify A Clerk’s Ref

usal to File a

Sugg estion of Hea

ring En Ba nc . . .” unf

iled. 8 tha n s pe c ul a t i ve a l l e ga t i ons . O n t h i s rec or d, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrby g r a n t i n g s u mma ry j u d g me n tt o th e D e f e n d a n t s o n th e FCA c l a i m. 2 AF F I RME D.