[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 16 12 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 42 17 -MGC

JOHN ROBERT J OHNSON, DIANA CANTU, as hi s wi fe, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us UNIQUE VACATIONS, INC., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, SANDALS RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, L TD., a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, d .b.a. Sa nd al s Gra nd e St . Luci anSp a an d B each Res ort, etal., Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 20 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, KRAVITCH andEDMONDSON, Circu itJu dg es .

Case: 11-16126 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 1 of 9PER CURI AM:

Pl ai nt iff s- App el lant s, J oh n R ob ertJo hn so n a ndhi s wi fe, Dia naCan tu , ap pe al th e g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of de fen da nt s o n acla im

of
ne gl ig en ce tha t re su lt edin pe rs on al in jury to J oh ns on whi le he was o n a ho rs eb ack -ri di ng ex cu rs io n wi th Can tuat ares ort i n S t. Lu ci a. No rev ers ib le 1
erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af firm . Pl ai nt iff s, re si de nt s o f Il li no is , tra ve le d t o S t. Lu ci a in Nov em be r 20 07 fora pr ep ai d v acat io n a t Sa nd al s Gra nd e St . Luci anSp a an d B each Res ort (“ San da ls Gran de ”). The y

us edUni qu e Vaca ti on s, In c. (“ Uni qu e”) t o m ak e th ei r va cat io n
acco m m od at io ns an d t rav el arra ng em en ts forth ei r al l-i nc lu si ve st ay at S an da ls Gran de . On 2 6 No ve m

be r 20 07 , pl ai nt iff

s b oo ke d a ndpa idfora ho rs eb ack -ri di ng
ex cu rs io n t hr ou gh th e San da ls Gran de to urde sk . The ex cu rs io n was op erat edby In te rn at io na l Po ny Club, wh o i s n ota pa rty to t he in st an t ac ti on . After p ur ch as in g th e ex cu rs io n t ic ke ts , Can tusi gn edanex cu rs io n t ic ke t s al es rece ip t wh ic h in cl ud edth es e wor ds :

W e re v i ew de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgme nt. Thomas v. Cooper 1 L ighting , Inc., 506 F .3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2007). And weview the evidenc e in the light most favor able to the non- moving pa rty . I d. 2 Case: 11-16126 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 2 of 9The re ex is ts no rel at io ns hi p o f m as te r an d s erv an t o r of ag en cy be twee n t he Oper at or s o f Tou rs an d t he Tou r Des k o f San da ls Gran de St . Luci an . The Op erat or s o f to ur s s ol d a t the Tou r Des k o f San da ls Gran de St. Lu ci anare s ol el y res po ns ib le forth ei r act s an d o m is si on s an d S an da ls Gran de St. Lu ci anass um es no res po ns ib il it y forsu ch act s an d o m is si on s o r fo r an y in jury, lo ss , dam ag e, si ckne ss , or acci de ntsu st ai ne d o n a ny of th e to ur s o ffer edforsal e atth e Tou r Des k. On 2 7 No ve m

be r 20 07 , pl ai nt iff

s, al on g wi thot he r San da ls Gran de res ort gu es ts , were tran sp orte d fr om th e res ort t o a n o ff-s it e lo cat io n o n abu s o pe rat ed by Sand al s R es orts Int ern at io na l, Ltd . (“ San da ls ”). Upo n a rri va l, p la in ti ffs si gn ed a wai ve r on a si gn -in sh eetforth e ex cu rs io n, wh ic h s ta te d i n p art : Whi le we tak e ev ery reas on ab le st ep to en su re y ou r en joym en t an d sa fety , on e m

us t re co gn iz e th e ex is te nc e o f anin he ren t ri skass oc ia te d wit h h or se ba ckrid in g a ndbe in g c lo se to ho rs es . Con se qu en tl y , each rid er wi ll be requi redto si gn th is waiv er. By do in g s o, t he cu st om er gi ve s up t he rig htto su e In te rn at io na l Po ny Club a ndth ei r em pl oyees, rep res en ta ti ve s, o ffi cers an d a ge nt s, fo r an y in juri es su st ai ne d b y

th e cu st om er an d h is pe rs on al be lo ng in gs , in cl ud in g o th er ac ti vi ti es en ga ge d o n t he be ach , li ke swi m m in g, s wimm in g wi thth e h or se s, ex pl or in g, s no rk el in g, et c. Jo hn so n a ll eg edth at , aft er h e m ou nt edhi s h or se , a to urgu id e smackedth e ho rs e cau si ng th e h or se to st artrun ni ng un ex pe ct ed ly. He was t hr own fro m th e ho rs e an d s uf

fere d s eri ou s i nju rie s. Pl ai nt iff s l at er fi le d aco m

pl ai ntag ai ns t Uni qu e, San da ls Gran de , andSan da ls , all eg in g t ha t d efen da nt s wer e v ic ari ou sl y li ab le forJo hn so n’s i njurie s due to th ei r rel at io ns hi p wi th Int ern at io na l Po ny Club.

3 Case: 11-16126 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 3 of 9Can tuals o b ro ug htanact io n fo r lo ss of c on so rti um . Defen da nt s, i n turn, m ov ed

to di sm is s t he co m

pl ai ntba se d o n fo ru m

no n c on ve ni en s, o n c on tra ctua l wai ve r,
an d fo r fai lu re t o e st ab li sh anag en cy rel at io ns hi p b etweenInt ern at io na l Po ny Club
an d d efen da nt s. On ap pe al , pl ai nt iff

s fi rs t ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby con ve rti ng de fen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s i nt o am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t -- an d t he n gr an ti ng th e m ot io n -- be cau se is su es of f actex is te d abo utwhet he r anag en cy rel at io ns hi p c ou ldbe fou ndbe twee n d efen da nt s an d In te rn at io na l Po ny Club. Whe n aco urt co ns id ers m at te rs ou ts id e o f th e p le ad in gs in a Fed .R.Ci v.P . 12 (b )(6 )
m ot io n t o d is m is s, the co urt co nv ert s t ha t m ot io n i nt o am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. See Fed .R.Ci v.P . 12 (d ) ; Tru st m arkIns . Co. v . ESLU, Inc., 2 99 F.3d 2 12 65 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Andwhen co nv ers io n o ccu rs , th e ad ve rs e p arty m us t be “ gi ve n e xp res s, t en -d ay no ti ce o f th e su m

m ary jud gm en t ru le s, o f hi s ri gh t t o fil e aff id av it s o r ot he r m at eri al in op po si ti on to th e m ot io n, an d o f th e
co ns eque nc es of d efau lt .” Griff it h v . W ai nwr ig ht , 77 2 F .2d82 2, 8 25 (11 th Cir
. 19 85 ).

I f, on a Rule 12(b)( 6) motion, “matter s outside the pleading are prese nted to a nd not e x cluded 2 by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgme nt under [Fed.R.Civ.P .] 56. All parties must be g iven a rea sonable opportunity to prese nt all the materia l that is p er t i n ent to the motion.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). Her e, the district cour t considere d exhibi ts, including copies of the rec eipt and wa iver, that de fenda nts attache d to their motion to di smiss.

4 Case: 11-16126 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 4 of 9The reco rdsh ows th atth e d is tri ctco urt fu ll y ex pl ai ne d t o p la in ti ffs th e
co ns eque nc es an d p ro cedur e o f co nv ers io n -- th ey were g iv enth e requi si te ten -d ay
no ti ce an d a dv is edto subm itad di ti on al ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f, orinop po si ti on to , th e m ot io n. Pl ai nt iff

s av ai le d the m se lv es of t hi s ri gh t an d fi le d a n o pp os it io n t o th e m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, i nc lu di ng supp orti ng ex hi bi ts . As a res ul t, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in co nv ert in g d efen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s t o am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Nex t, p la in ti ffs co nt en d t ha t t he di stric t co urt erredin gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t b ecau se th e co urt p la cedth e b ur de n o n t he m -- as th e n on m ov in g p arty - - to est ab li sh th e ex is te nc e o f anag en cy rel at io ns hi p b etweende fen da nt s an d In te rn at io na l Po ny Club. 3 Su m m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e th e m ov in g p art ie s d em on st rat e, th ro ug h p le ad in gs , in te rro ga to rie s, an d a dm is si on s, t og ethe r with a ffi da vi ts , if an y , th atno ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts an d t ha t the y are en ti tl edto jud gm en t
as a m atte r of

law. Fed .R.Ci v.P . 56 (a), (c ). Once a pa rty pro pe rly supp orts a
m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t b y

de m on st rat in g t he ab se nc e o f a g enui ne is su e o f

In g ener al, t he ex istence of an age ncy relationship i s one for the jury to decide a s the triers of 3 fac t. Villazon v. Prudential Hea lth Care Plan, Inc., 843 So.2d 842, 853 (F la. 2003). “The question can be resolved by summary judgme nt only in those case s wher e the evidenc e is capa ble of but one deter mination and there is no evidentiar y question for the jury to resolve.” Font v. Stanley Steemer Intern., Inc., 849 So.2d 1214, 1216 (F la. Dist. Ct. App. 2003). 5 Case: 11-16126 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 5 of 9m at eri al fact , th e n on m ov in g p arty m us t co m e fo rwardwith s pe ci fic fact s s ho win g a g enui ne is su e fo r tr ia l. Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Cat ret t, 4 77 U.S. 31 7, 3 23 -2 4, 1 06 S.Ct
. 25 48 , 25 53 , 91 L.Ed.2d26 5 (1 98 6) . “ A gen ui ne is su e o f m at eri al factdo es no t
ex is t u nl es s t he re i s s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce fa vo rin g t he no nm ov in g p arty fora
reas on ab le jury to return ave rd ic t i n i ts fav or .” Ch ap m anv. AI Tran sp ., 22 9 F .3d 10 12 , 10 23 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (en ba nc ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. The reco rdsupp orts th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th atpl ai nt iff s fa il edto sh ow s uf fic ie ntev id en ce tha t In te rn at io na l Po ny Club was anag en t o f de fen da nt s. Pl ai nt iff s fa il edto reb utth e ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t d efen da nt s d idno t i n a ny way
own , op erat e, orex erci se th e ri gh t t o c on tro l In te rn at io na l Po ny Club. Se e Whe ts to ne Can dy Co. v . KraftFo od s, In c., 35 1 F .3d10 67 , 10 77 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (h ol di ng th ere was “ no ag en cy rel at io ns hi p” be twee n t wo co m pa ni es ab se nta la ck of ackno wled gm en t t ha t o ne act edon be ha lf o f an ot he r). The rece ip t fo r th e
ex cu rs io n -- th atpl ai nt iff s ac kn owl ed ge Can tusi gn edwhen sh e p ai d fo r th e ho rs eb ackex cu rs io n -- cle arl y no te d t ha t In te rn at io na l Po ny Club was “ so le ly
res po ns ib le forth ei r act s an d o m is si on s” an d t ha t Sa nd al s Grand e “ as su m e[d ] no
res po ns ib il it y

forsu ch act s an d o m is si on s,” o r in juri es su st ai ne d o n t he to ur s of fere d fo r sa le at t he to urde sk . See Re st at em en t (S eco nd ) of Agen cy § 1 4 c m t. b (1 95 7) (“ If the ex is te nc e o f anag en cy rel at io n i s n otot he rwis e cl earl y sh own , as 6 Case: 11-16126 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 6 of 9whe re the is su e is whet he r . . . an ag en cy ha s b een crea te d, t he factth atitis
un de rs to odth atth e p ers onact in g i s n otto be subjec t t o t he co nt ro l o f th e o th er as to th e m an ne r of

pe rfo rm an ce d et erm in es th atth e rel at io n i s n otth atof a ge nc y .”);
se e al so Co m

m od it y Fu tu res Trad in g C omm ’n, 57 5 F .3dat 1 19 0 (r el ev an t t o
co nt ro l i n a n a ge nc y

rel at io ns hi p i s au th or ity

to supe rv is e an d d is ci pl in e th e ag en t). Defen da nt s re pe at ed ly repre se nt edto th ei r cu st om ers th atde fen da nt s h adno ag en cy rel at io ns hi p wi th th e o pe rat or s o f th e h or se ba ck -ri di ng ex cu rs io n. A di sp la y po st edonth e to urop erat orde skcle arl y no te d t ha t In te rn at io na l Po ny Club
was no ag en t o f de fen da nt s. Pl ai nt iff s ci te to sev eral co nt ractua l p ro vi si on s i n a n ag reem en t b etweenJai ro Man ag em en t Li m it ed(“ Ja iro ”), San da ls Gran de ’s
m an ag em en t co m

pa ny, andInt ern at io na l Po ny Club t o a rg ue th atJai ro ret ai ne d t he
au th or it y to co nt ro l In te rn at io na l Po ny Club’s h or se ba ck -ri di ng ex cu rs io ns . To th e
co nt rary, the r eco rdev id en ces th atInt ern at io na l Po ny Club o pe rat edas a n in de pe nd en t co nt ract or . See Verm eu le n v . W or ld wid e Hol id ay s, In c., 92 2 S o.2 d 27 1, 2 74 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 06 ) (“ The st an da rdforde te rm in in g wh ethe r an al le ge d a ge ntis anin de pe nd en t co nt ract oris th e d eg ree o f co nt ro l ex erci se d b y th e
em pl oyer or o wne r of

th e al le ge d a ge nt .”) (quo ta ti on an d a lt erat io n o m it te d)
.

7 Case: 11-16126 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 7 of 9The co nt ractpro vi si on s l is te d b y pl ai nt iff s d o n otrel at e to co nt ro l; no ne of th e requi rem en ts di ct at edho w Int ern at io na l Po ny Club was requi redto op erat e it s ho rs eb ack -ri di ng ex cu rs io n t ou rs . The co nt ractsp eci fic al ly stat edth at In te rn at io na l Po ny Club was who ll y res po ns ib le forth e m ai nt en an ce o f “ al l t he
an im al s, equi pm en t an d/ orve hi cl es us edin th e p ro vi si on of t he Serv ic es .” In te rn at io na l Po ny Club a ls o was res po ns ib le forhi rin g a ndsupe rv is in g i ts own
em pl oyees, as well as p ro cu rin g i ts own li cen se s, i ns ur an ce, an d p erm it s. No th in g in di cat es th atde fen dant s i ns tru ct edInt ern at io na l Po ny Club, i n s ub st an ce, o n h ow to run it s b us in es s. See Harp er ex rel . Daley v. Tol er, 8 84 So .2d11 24 , 11 31 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 04 ) (n ot in g tha t, an ag en cy rel at io ns hi p e xi st s wh ere t he pri nc ip al
co nt ro ls th e m ean s b y

whi ch th e ag en cy

co nduc ts it s b us in es s, b utwher e th e pr in ci pa l co ntro ls on ly the res ul ts to be ob ta in edfro m th e b us in es s, the rel at io ns hi p i s o ne of a n i nd ep en de ntco nt ract or ). Des pi te pl ai nt iff

s’ cla im s o f anag en cy

rel at io ns hi p b etweenInt ern at io na l Po ny Club a ndde fen da nt s, the m ere a ll eg at io n o f ag en cy is in su ffi ci en t t o c reat e a pr in ci pa l/ ag en t re la ti on sh ip . See Verm eu le n, 9 22 So .2dat 2 74 -7 5 (a ffi rm in g t he gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t wh ere t he pl ai nt iff fai le d t o p res en t ev id en ce s ho win g th atde fen da nt s o wne d, o pe rat ed , or c on tro ll edth e n eg li ge ntpa rty). Here, pl ai nt iff s h av e p res en te d n o e vi de nc e in di cat in g t ha t d efen da nt s o wne d, o pe rat ed , 8 Case: 11-16126 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 8 of 9orco nt ro ll edInt ern at io na l Po ny Club. As su ch , pl ai nt iff s’ sp ecu la ti on s ar e in su ffi ci en t t o c reat e anis su e o f fac t ab ou t ag en cy ; an d the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o d efen da nt s. 4 AFFIR MED.

Be cause J ohnson does not have an actionable tort ag ainst defe ndants, the district court properly 4 conclude d that Cantu’s loss of consortium claim fails as a matter of law. See Gates v. Foley , 247 So.2d 40, 45 (F la. 1971) (under Florida law, a loss of consortium claim is a derivative claim and is depende nt upon the exis tenceof an a ctionable tort c ausingharm to the plaintiff’ s spouse). 9 Case: 11-16126 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 9 of 9