FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 8, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 28 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cv -6 08 85 -PAS JUDITH SILVER, Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us COUNTRYW IDE HOME LOAN S, INC. d.b .a. Am eri ca’s Who le sa le Lend er, In c., Defen da nt- App el le e.

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jun e 8 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ju di th Sil ve r ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t oCo un trywide Hom e Loa ns , Inc . (“ Co un trywide ”), o n a ll of S il ve r’s cl ai m s. Si lv er

al so ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s (1 ) de ni al of S il ve r’s m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s an d in fere nc e o f sp ol ia ti on of e vi de nc e, (2 ) de ni al of S il ve r’s m ot io n t o a m en d t he co m pl ai ntan d t he m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m th e d en ia l, (3 ) gr an t o f Co un trywide ’s m ot io n t o s tri ke Sil ve r’s de m an d fo r a jury tri al , and(4) de ni al of S il ve r’s m ot io n fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o re cu se it se lf. We affi rm . I. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he gra ntof s umm ary jud gm en t, t ak in g a ll jus ti fiabl e in fere nc es inSil ve r’s fav or . Boz em anv. Oru m , 42 2 F .3d12 65 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o C ou nt rywid e o n t he fo ll owi ng is su es . a. Frau d Si lv er ar gu es th atth ere i s a g enui ne di sp ut e o f m at eri al facton he r cl ai m for frau d b ecau se Co un trywide st eere d h er i nt o aris ki er m ortg ag e an d d idno t i nf orm he r of th e m ortg ag e’s pr ov is io ns .

“ A party norm al ly is b ou ndby a con tra ctth atth e p arty si gn s u nl es s the pa rty can d em on st rat e th athe or s he was p rev en te d fr om read in g i t o r in du cedby th e o th er p arty

to refra in fro m

read in g i t.” Co ns ol . Res . Healt hc are F un d I, Lt d. v .

2Fen el us , 85 3 S o. 2 d 5 00 , 50 4 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 20 03 ). It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t

Si lv er s ig ne d a ll of the ag reem en ts th atdi sc lo se d the term s o f he r m ortg ag e, ev en th ou gh sh e was to ldno t t o s ig n a ny do cu m en t tha t s he di d n otun de rs ta nd . Add it io na ll y , sh e co ul d n otreas on ab ly be d ecei ve d b y an y ora l s ta te m en ts th at were atva ria nc e wit h wri tt enterm s t o wh ic h s he ag reed . Hill cres t Pa c. Co rp . v. Yam am ur a, 72 7 S o. 2 d 1 05 3, 1 05 6 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 99 ) (“ A party cann ot reco ve r in frau d fo r al le ge d o ral m is rep res en ta ti on s tha t ar e ad equa te ly cov eredor ex pr es sl y co nt rad ic te d i n alat er wri tt enco nt ract .”). W e th eref or e ag ree wi th th e di st ric t co urt tha t Si lv er’s fraudcla im fai ls as am at te r of

law. 1 b. Br each of C on tra ct/B reac h o f Im pl ie d C ov en an t o f Goo d F ai th an d F ai r Deal in g Si lv er s eem s t o c on te ndth atCo un trywide bre ach edth e Fo rb earanc e Agr eem en t b y

no t uph ol di ng it s p ro mis e to he lp he r refi na nc e h er m ortg ag e an d b y im pr op erl y im po si ng lat e p en al ti es an d re po rti ng he r to cred itbureau s. A bre ach of t he co ve na ntof g oo d fa it h m us t b e b as edup on th e fai le d pe rfo rm an ce o f anex pr es s t erm of t he co nt ract . Sno w v. Ru de n, M cCl os ky, Sm ith, Sc hu st er & R

us se ll , P.A., 89 6 S o. 2 d 7 87 , 79 2 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 20 05 ) (“ The re ca n b e n o c au se of a ct io n fo r a b reac h o f th e im pl ie d c ov en an t ab se ntan For these same rea sons, Sil ver’ s conspirac y to defra ud claim also fa ils. 1 3al le ga ti on th atanex pr es s t erm of t he co nt ractha s b een bre ach ed .”) (quo ta ti on s om it te d) . Inth is cas e, th ere i s n o p ro vi si on inth e m ortg ag e ag reem en t—no r an y ot he r ag reem en t tha t Si lv er h as pro du ced—re qu iri ng Co un trywide to he lp refi nanc e Si lv er’s m ortg ag e. The F orbe aran ce Ag reem en t s ta te s tha t Co un trywide wil l h av e

“ so le an d abs ol ut e d is cret io n” eithe r to (1) requi re Si lv er t o re co m m en ce re gu la r pa ym en ts , (2) rei ns ta te th e lo aninful l, o r (3 ) m od ify the lo anor o fferot he r lo an as si st an ce. Itis un di sp ut edth aton Marc h 4 , 20 09 , Cou nt rywid e in fo rm edhe r th at th e m od ifi cat io n h adbe ende ni ed . There is no pro vi si onrequi rin g t ha t Co un trywide see k fi na nc ia l i nf orm at io n fr om

Sil ve r be fo re m ak in g t ha t d eci si on . Si lv er h as no t s ho wn tha t Co un trywide fai le d t o a ctingo odfai th with re sp ectto an y ex pr es s t erm

of a ny con tra ct , andth us th is po rti onof h er ar gu m en t fa il s as a m at te r of law. Id . 2 W it h re sp ectto Sil ve r’s arg um en t tha t Co un trywide bre ach edth e Fo rb earanc e Agr eem en t b y im po si ng a la te pe na lt y

an d re po rti ng he r to cred it bu reau s, s he di d n otpro vi de th is Co urt— orth e d is tri ctco urt—with c it at io ns to th e

To the extent that Si lver a rgues that Country

wide bre ache d its duty

of g ood faith 2 with respec t to her initial mortga g e contr act, she has fa iled to identify any express provision from that contra ct that Country wide fa iled to perfor

m in good f

aith, and thus we f

ind the argument without merit. 4reco rdto supp ort the se factua l as se rti on s, n oris itcle ar tha t h er co m pl ai nt pr op erl y rai se d t he se is su es . See Nat ’l Alli an ce fo r th e Me nt al ly Ill v . Bd. o f Cn ty. Co m m ’rs, 37 6 F .3d12 92 , 12 95 -9 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (ho ld in g t ha t, i n a cco rd an ce with F ed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro cedur e 2 8( a)(9 )(A), fai lu re t o i nc lu de “ ci ta ti on s to th e . . . part s o f th e rec or d o n wh ic h the ap pe ll an t re li es ” m ay res ul t i n wai ve r). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt o n thi s i ss ue . c. FDUTPA Si lv er cl ai m s t ha t Co un trywide ’s beh av io r im pl ic at es th e Fl or id a Dece pt iv e an d Un fai r Trad e Pra ct ic es Act, wh ic h d ecl ares th at“un fai r orde cep ti ve act s o r pr act ic es inth e co nduc t o f an y tra de or c omm erce ” are un la wfu l. Fl a. St at . Ann . § 5 01 .20 4( 1) . Decep ti on oc cu rs “ if t he re i s a r ep res en ta ti on , om is si on , or p ract ic e th atis li ke ly to m is le adth e co ns um er ac ti ng reas on ab ly in the cir cum st an ces , to th e co ns um er’s d etriment. Th is st an da rdrequi res a sh owi ng of p ro babl e, no t p os si bl e, de cep ti on th atis li ke ly to caus e in jury to a re as on ab le rel y in g c on su m er.” Zlo tn ic k v . Prem ie r Sal es Grp., In c., 48 0 F .3d12 81 , 12 84 (11 thCir . 20 07 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on s o mit te d) . W it h re sp ectto th e in it ia l m ortg ag e ag reem en ts , Sil ve r co nc ed edth atsh e

5was to ldno t t o s ig n a ny do cu m en ts th atsh e d idno t u nd ers ta nd . W it h re sp ectto

th e fai lure t o re fin an ce h er m ortg ag e, th e Fo rb eara nc e Agr eem en t o f Decem be r 2, 20 08 , exp li ci tl y

sai d t ha t Co un trywide po ss es se d “ so le an d abs ol ut e d is cret io n” to

“ de te rm in e whe th er ad di ti on al paym en t as si st an ce can b e o ffer ed .” Co un trywide al way s h adth e ri gh t t o re fu se to refi na nc e th e lo an . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ct co urt tha t thi s co nduc t d oe s n otrun afo ul of t he FDUTPA. d. Othe r Cl ai m s Inhe r in it ia l b rie f, Sil ve r fai le d t o p ro pe rly rais e anarg um en t o n h er cl ai m s of bre ach of f

iduc ia ry du ty, ne gl ig en ce, an d v io la ti on of t he Flo rid a RIC O st atut e. The se is su es are wai ve d. Un it edSta te s v . Jerni ga n, 3 41 F.3d12 73 , 12 84 n.8 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ [A] party

see ki ng to rai se a cl ai m

or i ss ue on ap pe al m

us t p la in ly and pr om in en tl y

so in di cat e. Oth erwi se , th e is su e—e ve n i f pr op erl y pre se rv edat tri al —wi ll be co ns id eredab an do ne d.” ). II. The fol lo win g i ss ue s ar e rev ie wedforanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Eli Lil ly & Co . v. AirExp res s In t’l USA, In c., 61 5 F .3d13 05 , 13 13 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (s an ct io ns an d s po li at io n) ; M an n v . TaserInt ’l, Inc., 5 88 F.3d12 91 , 13 12 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (m ot io n t o a m en d) ; M urray v. Sc ot t, 2 53 F.3d13 08 , 13 10 (11 thCir . 620 01 ) (rec us al ).

a. San ct io ns & Sp ol ia ti on Si lv er co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y no t i m po si ng sa nc ti on s an d b y

no t fi nd in g a n i nf

eren ce o f sp ol ia ti onag ai ns t Co un trywide for fai li ng to tu rnov er em ai ls rel ev an t t o t he cas e an d fo r fai li ng to ha ve a pr op er li ti ga ti on ho ldpl acedon Sil ve r’s fil e.

“ Inth e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t, an adve rs e in fere nc e is drawn fr om a pa rty’ s fai lu re t o p res erv e ev id en ce o nl y when th e ab se nc e o f th atev id en ce i s p red ic at ed on ba d fa it h. Whil e th is cir cu itdo es no t re qu ire a sh owi ng of m al ic e in ord er t o fin d b adfai th , m ere n eg li ge nc e in lo si ng or d es tro y in g re co rd s i s n otsu ffi ci en t t o dr aw anadve rs e in fere nc e.” Ma nn , 58 8 F .3dat 1 31 0 (c it at io n a ndqu ot at io ns om it te d) . On Se pt em

be r 23 , 20 10 , Cou ntrywid e’s co un se l i nf orm edth e m ag is tra te th atth ere h adbe ena di li ge ntsea rch forall rel ev an t em ai ls an d t ha t n on e h adbe en fo un d b ecau se th ere was no form al ret en ti on po li cy . Howev er, co un se l al so st at ed th atsh e was curren tl y

work in g wi th Co un trywide to en su re tha t the re re al ly w as no po ss ib le way

to reco ve r an y

ol d e m ai ls . The m ag is tra te ord eredCo un trywide to fil e anaffi da vi t ex pl ai ni ng whatha d b een do ne to fin d t he em ai ls , whatth e

7co m

pa ny’ s re te nt io n p ol ic y

was, an d wh atno ti ce h adbe ensen t t o C ou nt rywid e em pl oyees re ga rd in g t he ret en ti on of d oc um en ts rel ev an t t o S il ve r’s cas e. On Octo be r 11 , 20 10 , Cou nt ry wid e subm it te d t he affi da vi t o f Bar ba ra Trav is , who is a li ti ga ti on sp eci al is t atCo un trywide Hom e Loa ns Serv ic in g, s ta ti ng th atsh e h ad reque st edth e o ffi ce o f th e p res id en t, as well as t he vi ce p res id en ts of s ev eral de pa rtments , to sea rch forrel ev an t em ai ls , bu t n on e h adbe enun co ve red . The v ic e pr es id en t o f th e IT de pa rtment wa s al so inth e p ro ces s o f se arch in g fo r th e em ai ls bu t h adin fo rm edTrav is th atCo un trywide ha d ani ne ty-day em ai l re te nt io n p ol ic y . Trav is was d ep os edon Decem be r 10 , 20 10 . She tes ti fie d t ha t Co un trywide actua ll y ha d a n e m ai l ‘del et io n p ol ic y ,’ whi chst at edth atem pl oyees c ou ldde le te em ai ls when ev er the y

want ed , bu t al l em ai ls ol de r th anni ne ty day s wo ul d b e au to m at ic al ly del et edfor ev er. Howe ve r, Trav is ha d re cen tl y be enin fo rm edby the IT de pa rtment t ha t ce rta in “ jou rn al ed ” em

pl oyees h adth ei r ol d e m ai ls au to m at ic al ly archi ve d o n ath irdpa rty’ s b ack -up s erv ers . No em pl oyee kn ew whe th er h e o r sh e was a “ jou rn al ed ” em

pl oyee. Travi s t es ti fie d tha t, af te r th e m ag is tra te ’s Sep te m

be r 23 ord er, the IT dep art m en t b eg ansea rch in g t he se ba ck -up se rv ers for“

journ al ed ” em

pl oyees’ ol d e m ai ls . At th e ti m e o f Trav is ’s dep os it io n, th e se arch was s ti ll on -g oi ng bu t h adalr eady un co ve redsev eral em ai ls rel ev an t t o Si lv er’s cas e. 8Trav is als o t es ti fie d t ha t i n M ay 20 09 , a li ti ga ti on ho ldwas p la cedon Si lv er’s fi le . Travi s’s t es ti m on y on th is subjec t co ns is te d m os tl y of h er i nd ic at in g th atsh e was no t i nv ol ve d i n d eci di ng whet he r to pu t a l it ig at io n h ol d o n afil e n or whe th er an y

act io ns sh ou ldbe tak eninterm s o f pr es erv in g d oc um en ts th atm ig ht be rel ev an t t o t he fil e. W e fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on no t t o i m po se sa nc ti on s an d n otto fin d a n i nf eren ce o f sp ol ia ti on . W it h re sp ectto th e em ai ls on ba ck -up s erv ers , Sil ve r m ak es m uc h o f th e fac t tha t Trav is ’s affi da vi t co nf li ct s with h er l at er d ep os it io n t es ti m on y . Howev er, h er i ni ti al lac k o f kn owl ed ge ab ou t th e p se ud o- se cretarch iv al of “ jou rn al ed ” em

pl oyees’ em ai ls is pro pe rly ch arac te riz edas c arel es sn es s atm os t. See Man n, 5 88 F.3dat 1 31 0 (h ol di ng th at

“ anadve rs e in fere nc e is dra wn fr om a pa rty’ s fa il ur e to pre se rv e ev id en ce o nl y whe n the ab se nc e o f th atev id en ce i s p red ic at edon ba d fa it h” ). Als o, Trav is ’s te st im on y in di cat edth atth ere wer e actua ll y m or e em ai ls th anori gi na ll y be li ev ed an d t ha t Co un trywide was wo rk in g t o c on ti nu e se arch in g t he ba ck -up s erv ers . If Co un trywide were ac ti ng inba d fa it h, i t s eem s u nl ik el y th atitwou ldrev eal th atit s se arch of b ack -up s erv ers ha d u nc ov eredrel ev an t em ai ls . As fo r th e li ti ga ti onho ldpo li cy , Sil ve r’s arg um en t o f ba d fa it h re li es ex cl us iv el y

up on Trav is ’s tes ti m on y . Sil ve r cl ai m s tha t Trav is ’s tes ti m on y sh ows 9th atCo un trywide ha d n o re al li ti ga ti on ho ldpro ces s. Ho wev er, Trav is tes ti fie d

th ata sp eci al no ta ti on was p la cedon fil es th atare p utonli ti ga ti on ho ld . The rem ai nd er o f Trav is ’s perti ne nttes ti m on y is to th e eff

ectth atsh e was no t pe rs on al ly inv ol ve d i n t he de ci si on to pl ace afil e o n l it ig at io n h ol d, n orwas s he in vo lv edinan y

de ci si on s t o p res erv e rel ev an t d oc um en ts . This ev id en ce i s in su ffi ci en t t o s ho w th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y fai li ng to im po se san ct io ns or f

in d a n i nf eren ce o f sp ol ia ti on . Accor di ng ly, we fi ndno erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on on th es e is su es . See Eli Lil ly, 61 5 F .3dat 1 31 3. b. M ot io n t o Am en d a ndMo ti on forRel ie f Si lv er ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y de nyin g S il ve r’s m ot io n t o a m en d the co m pl ai ntan d fo r de nyin g h er m ot io n fo r rel ie f. Sil ve r so ug htto ad d n ew factua l d et ai ls an d t wo n ew cl ai m s ag ai ns t Co un trywide . This m ot io n t o a m en d was fil edfou rte enm on th s af te r th e cas e was in it ia ll y

rem ov edto th e d is tri ctco urt. The factua l ch an ge s tha t s he so ug htto m ak e to th e co m pl ai nt were m os tl y

m in oran d c ert ai nl y

no t cr it ic al to he r cas e, an d h er n ew cl ai m s ag ai ns t Co un trywide wou ldha ve requi redth e d is tri ctco urt t o c om pl et el y ab an do n it s ca se m an ag em en t p la n. Un de r th es e fac ts , we fin d n o abu se of d is cret io n i n t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to de ny the m ot io n t o am en d a ndth e m ot io n fo r rel ie f.

10See Hea rnv. Mc Kay , 60 3 F .3d89 7, 8 99 n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (“ W e can no t

co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d ecl in in g t o a ll ow Pl ai nt iff s to am en d the co m

pl ai ntaft er the pre tri al ord er’s d ead li ne for am en dm en t h ad pa ss ed .”). c. Mo ti on to Recu se Si lv er ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e rec us edit se lf b ecau se th e co urt’s s po us e is a pa rtn er ata la w firm th atrep res en ts an ot he r la w firm th at rep res en ts Ban k o f Am eri ca, wh ic h o wns Co un trywide . W e d o n otbe li ev e th at th es e fac ts rai se a do ub t ab ou t the di st ric t ju dg e’s im pa rti al it y , andacco rd in gl y we fin d n o e rro r. See Ch ris to v. Pa dg et t, 2 23 F.3d13 24 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). 3 AFFIR MED. 4

Be cause we c onclude that the district c ourt properly grante d summary

judgme nt to 3 Country wide on all cla ims, S ilver’s a rgument that the district court e rre d by striking he r dema

nd for a jury trial is rende red moot, and the ref ore w e do not addr ess it. Silver’s reque st for ora l argument is DENI ED. 4 11