FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Dec . 03, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 12 68 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 8- 02 99 9- CV-WSD-1

RICHAR D W . DRAKE,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
W ILLIAM H. W HALEY, W EST PACES FERRY M EDICAL CLINIC,
Defen da nt s- App el le es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 3, 2 00 9)
Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:

In 1993 , Delt a Air Lin es te rm in at ed th e em pl oym en t of fli gh t at te nd an t Ri ch ard

W

. Drak e aft er a ran do m dr ug te st of Drak e’s ur in e cam e ba ck po si ti ve fo r anad ul te ran t. Defen da nt W il li am H. W ha le y was Delt a’s Med ic al Rev ie w Offi cer an d

ov ers aw it s dr

ug te st in g p r og ram

. Drak e al le ge s th at , in 19 93 , W ha le y ne gl ig en tl y

pe rfo rm ed hi s du ti es rel at ed to th e dr ug te st

. (R.1 -1 7 at 3.) Drak e al so al le ge s th at , fro m 19 94 th ro ug h 20 00 , W ha le y frau du le nt ly co nc eal ed hi s in vo lv em en t in ha nd li ng
th e dr ug te st an d co ns pi red wit h Delt a to wit hh ol d fro m Drak e do cu m en ts rel at ed to
th e te st . ( Id

. at 1 3.)

In 19 94 , Drak e fil ed th e fir st o f se ve ral la wsu it s ag ai ns t Delt a rel at ed to hi s

te rm in at io n an d al le ge d irr eg ul ari ti es wit h th e dr ug te st in th e East ern Dis tri ct of New

Yor k; ul ti m at el y , al l were di sm is se d. In 20 01 , Drak e fir s t f i l e d s ui t ag ai ns t th e
de fen da nt s in th i s c a s e, W ha le y an d th e W es t Pace s Ferr y Med ic al Cl in ic , in th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of New Yor k. H e a s s e r t e d c la im s ari si ng ou t of th e dr ug te st an d

te rm in at io n th at oc cu rred ei gh t y ears pr io r to th e fil in g of th e la wsu it

. In Sep te m be r
20 08 , th e co ur t di sm is se d th e su it ag ai ns t W ha le y an d th e Cl in ic , wit ho ut pr ejud ic e,
fo r la ck of pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on

. Dra ke v. La bo ra to ry Co rp

. of Ameri ca Hol di ng s , No. 0 2- CV-1 92 4, 2 00 8 WL 42 39 84 4 (E.D.N.Y. Sep t. 1 1, 2 00 8)

. Two week s l at er, Drak e fi le d a co m pl ai nt in th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Geo rg ia

ag ai ns t th e sa m e de fen da nt s as se rti ng cl ai m s fo r ne gli ge nc e, tor tio us in te rfer en ce wit h

Plaintiff does not make specific alleg ations ag ainst West Paces Fe rry Medica l Clini c except 1 that Whaley was the owner of t he clinic and used it to perf orm Medica l Review Office r functions for De lta.
2eco no m ic rel at io ns , m is rep res en ta ti on , ne gl ig en t in fli ct io n of em ot io na l di st res s ,

sp ol ia ti on of ev id en ce, an d co ns pi racy ari si ng ou t of th e 19 93 d r u g te st an d

te rm in at io n. Tha t co ur t he ld Dr ak e’s cl ai m s were al l ti m e ba rred by th e st at ut e of

l i mi t a t i o n s an d di sm is se d th e cas e. Drak e ap pe al s, arg ui ng (1 ) th e co ur t erre d in

co nc lu di ng co ll at eral es to pp el di d no t ba r th e Defen da nt s fro m re-l it ig at in g th e is su e
of eq ui ta bl e to ll in g; an d (2 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng th e do ct rin e of eq ui ta bl e

to ll in g d id no t ap pl y

to to ll th e li m it at io ns pe rio d. 2

I. Co ll at era l Es to ppel
Pri or to di sm is si ng Drak e’s s u i t ag ai ns t W ha le y an d th e Cl in ic fo r la ck of

pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on , th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e East ern Dis tri ct of New

Yor k de ni ed th e de fen da n t s’ m ot io ns to di sm is s th e cas e ba se d on th e st at ut e of

li m it at io ns , fin di ng Drak e’s al le ga ti on s were su ffi ci en t to st at e a cl ai m fo r eq ui ta bl e

to ll in g an d th at th e is su e wou ld be le ft t o be de ci de d at tri al

. Dra ke , 20 07 W L

77 68 18 , at *8

. Drak e arg ue s th at co ll at eral es to pp el at ta ch es to th is in te rim ru li ng to
ba r th e Defen da nt s fr om

re-l it ig at in g t he st at ut e o f li m it at io ns is su e in th e su it fil ed

in th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a.

Dra ke also arg ues the court err ed in allowing the Def endants to introduce for the first time 2 in their reply brief the arg ument that collater al estoppel did not apply to toll the limit ations period. This arg ument is wholly

without merit.
3“ Und er co ll at eral es to pp el , once an iss ue is act ua ll y an d ne ces sa ril y de te rm in ed

by a co ur t of com

pe te nt juri sd ic ti on , th at de te rm in at io n is co nc lu si ve in su bs eq ue nt

su it s

. . . in vo lv in g a pa rty t o th e pr io r li ti ga ti on .” Mon ta na v. Uni te d St at es , 44 0

U.S. 14 7, 15 3, 99 S. Ct

. 97 0, 97 3 (1 97 9) (ci ta ti on o mi tt ed ). The di st ric t co ur t

p ro pe rly he ld co ll at eral es to pp el do es no t ap pl y to th is cas e fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t , be cau se it la ck ed pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er th e Defen da nt s, th e Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
East ern Dis tri ct of New Yor k was no t a co m pe te nt co ur t of juri sd ic ti on ; it co ul d no t
de ci de th e is su e of eq ui ta bl e es to pp el

. Seco nd , ev en if juri sd ic ti on were pr op er, th e

co ur t’s ru li ng was no t a cri ti cal an d ne ces sa ry pa rt of a fin a l jud gm en t. It de ni ed a

m ot io n to di sm is s bu t le ft th e is su e t o be de ci de d at tri al

. The refo re, th e Dis tri ct
Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Geo rg ia di d no t err whe n it he ld co ll at eral es to pp el
di d no t ap pl y to pr ev en t th e De f e n d a n ts fro m as se rti ng Drak e’s cl ai m s were ba rred by the st at ut e o f li m it at io ns

.
II . Equi ta bl e Es to ppel

A cau se of act io n accr ue s whe n a pl ai nt iff , in ex erci si ng reas on ab le di li ge nc e,
sh ou ld ha ve di sc ov ered th at he was in jure d an d th at th e in

jury “ m ay ha ve be en cau se d by de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t.” Har ri so n v. Dig it al Equ ip

. Co rp

. , 46 5 S.E.2d 49 4, 49 5 (Ga. App

. 19 95 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Unl es s eq ui ta bl y to ll ed , Drak e’s cl ai m s accr ue d whe n
Delt a te r mina te d hi s em pl oym en t in Decem

be r 19 93

. He fir st fil ed su it ag ai ns t

4W ha le y an d th e Cl in ic in 20 01 , se ve r a l ye a r s aft er th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns fo r hi s

cau se s of act io n ex pi red

. (R.1 -1 7 at 9.) He co nt en ds eq ui ta bl e es to pp el ex te nd s th e
li m it at io ns pe rio ds on hi s cl ai m s s o t he y are n ot ti m e b arre d.

Und er Geo rg ia la w, if th e de fen da nt is “ gu il ty of a frau d by whi ch th e pl ai nt iff
ha s be en de ba rred or de te rred fro m br in gi ng an act io n, th e pe rio d of li m it at io n sh al l

ru n on ly fro m th e ti m e of th e pl ai nt iff ’s di sc ov ery of th e frau d.” O.C.G.A. § 9- 3- 96

. Gen eral ly, “ [c]on ceal m en t of th e cau se of act io n m us t be by po si ti ve affi rm at iv e act

an d no t by m ere si le nc e.” Fed

. In s. Co

. v. W es ts id e Su pp ly Co ., 59 0 S.E.2d 22 4, 22 9 (Ga. App

. 20 03 ) (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. “ In th e a b s e n c e o f a fid uc ia ry
rel at io n, ev en frau d wil l no t pr ev en t a su it fro m be in g ba rred , whe re th e pl ai nt iff ha s
fai le d to ex erci se reas on ab le di li ge nc e to de te ct su ch frau d.” Bat es v. Met ro

. Tr an si t Sy s. , 19 7 S .E.2d 78 1, 7 82 (Ga. App . 19 73 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.
Drak e cl ai m s th at , fro m 19 94 to 20 00 , he rep eat ed ly req ue st ed fro m Delt a al l

reco rd s rel at in g to hi s dr ug te st , bu t Delt a an d W ha le y ig no red hi s req ue st s un ti l th ey

were co m pe ll ed by th e Fed eral Avi at io n Aut ho rit y to pr od uc e do cu m en ts in Feb ru ary
20 00

. (R.1 -1 7 at 13 .) He arg ue s th at ev en th ou gh he ne ve r pe rs on al ly as ke d W ha le y
fo r in fo rm at io n, W ha le y no ne th el es s pe rp et rat ed a “ frau d by si le nc e” by wit hh ol di ng
in fo rm at io n an d do cu m en ts th at wou ld ha ve al lo w ed Drak e to pr os ecu te hi s cl ai m s

5in a ti m el y

m an ne r. (

Id

. ) He al so al le ge s W

ha le y frau du le nt ly con ceal ed hi s ro le in
ha nd li ng Drak e’s dr

ug tes t. ( Id

. )

It is un di sp ut ed th at , in 19 94 , Drak e kn ew th at W ha le y was Delt a’s Med ic al

Rev ie w Offi cer an d th at W ha le y ha d rece iv ed a r e po rt fro m a dr ug te st in g la b

in di cat in g Drak e’s ur in e sa m pl e was un su it ab le fo r te st in g. (R.1 -1 7 at 18 .) It is al so

un di sp ut ed th at , in Nov em be r 19 93 , W ha le y te le ph on ed Drak e an d to ld hi m th ere was

a p r o b l em wit h hi s dr ug te st

. ( Id

. ) App ro xi m at el y si x week s aft er th e te le ph o n e

co nv ers at io n, Delt a te rm in at ed Drak e’s em pl oym en t be cau se of th e res ul ts of th e te st

. ( Id

. at 3- 4.) Thu s, se ve n y ears pr io r to fil in g su it ag ai ns t W ha le y an d th e Cl in ic , Drak e kn ew he ha d su ffer ed an in jury co nc ern in g a te st of hi s ur in e an d th at W ha le y

was in vo lv ed in th e te st in g pro ces s. Fu rth er, as di sc us se d on pa ge s si xt een th ro ug h

ni ne te en of th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r (R.1 -1 7 a t 1 6

- 1 9) , Drak e do es no t pr es en t

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of frau du le nt co nc eal m en t to ap pl y th e do ct rin e of eq ui ta bl e

to ll in g.

Fi nd in g th at Drak e’s cau se of act io n accr ue d in 19 94 , an d fin di ng in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce of frau d to to ll th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns , we do no t co ns id er whe th er Drak e

ex erci se d reas on ab le di li ge nc e to di sc ov er th e cau se of act io n. The di st ric t co ur t di d

no t err in ho ld in g Drak e’s cl ai m s are ba rred by th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns an d th at th e
li m it at io ns pe rio ds are n ot eq ui ta bl y to ll ed

.
6II I. CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e jud gm en t.

AFFIR MED.

7