FILED U.S. COURT OF AP PEALS ELEV ENT HC IR C U IT MAY 2 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [ 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. 05- 13565 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -004 26 -C V -M H S -1 T O N Y L . W A R E , C E O , T .L . W A R E B O T T L I N G C O M P A N Y , I N C ., P la in tif fs - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s F L E E T B O S T O N F I N A N C I A L C O R P ., f .k .a . B a n k b o s to n C o rp ., D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 2, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Ware B ottling conc edes that it was administratively dissolved at one time, but argues 1 that acc ordingto Ga. Code Ann. § 14- 2-1409(c ), its corporate status was returned to ac tive or g ood standingwith the Georg ia Secretary of State bec ause it wa s reinstated on April 22, 2005, beforethedis tric t c ourt

e ntere d thefi nal orders at is su e . N e verthele ss, it i s n ot n e c e ssa ry to addre ss this i ssue here bec ause, even if WareBottlingwas improperly dismiss ed in ac cordance with § 14-2-1409(c ), weaff irm the district court, for

rea sons set forth, infra . FleetBoston moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) , but attache d documents outside the 2 pleading s in support thereof , which the district court considere d in its order. Although this mi ght have trigg ere d the conversion provision of Rule 12(b)( 6) and theRule 56 requirements for notice andsp e c ial attenti onto proselitig ants , w efi ndthat th edis tric t c ourt ’s relianc eup onfac ts outside of Ware’ s complaint was harmless. See A rtisti c Entm't, Inc. v. City of W arner Robins , 331 F.3d 1196, 1202 ( 11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). 2 T on y L . W ar e, proceedi ng pro se, and T . L . W ar e B ot t l i ng C o. , Inc. (“ W ar e 1 B ott l i ng” ) , thr ough c ouns e l , ( c ol l e c t i ve l y r e fe rr e d t o a s “ W a r e ” ) a ppe a l f r om the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e r s g r a n tin g F le e tB o s to n F in a n c ia l C o rp o r a tio n 's ( “ F l e e t B os t on” ) F e de r a l R ul e of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 12( b) m ot i on t o di s m i s s a nd F e de r a l R ul e of

C i vi l P r oc e dur e 60( b) m ot i on t o s e ta s i de or de r s , a nd de ny i ng W a r e ’ s m ot i on t o r e m a nd. O n a ppe a l , W a r e a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d not 2 have j uri sdi cti on un der the R ook e r - F e l dm an doc tr i ne , the s t a t e a c t i on w a s not r e m ova bl e be c a us e i tw a s pe ndi ng a ppe a l i n the s t a t e ’ s hi ghe s tc our t , F l e e t B os t on di d n othave the capaci ty t o rem ov e the ac t i on beca use i tw as a di ss ol ved c orpor a t i on a nd a s s uc h c oul d nots uf fe ra ny i nj ur y i n fa c t , a nd F l e e t B os t on di d not tim e ly r e m o v e th e a c tio n . U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of the br i e fs of

the p a r tie s , w e d is c e r n n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r .3 I. W e r e v ie w w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d r e m o v a l ju r is d ic tio n d e n o v o . H e ns on v . C i ba- G e i gy C or p. , 26 1 F . 3d 10 65 , 10 68 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( per c uri am ), a f f’ ds u b n o m. , Sy nge nta C r op P r ote c t i on, I nc . v . H e ns on , 5 3 7 U .S . 2 8 , 1 2 3 S . C t. 3 6 6 , 1 5 4 L . E d . 2 d 3 6 8 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . F e d e r a l la w g o v e r n in g r e m o v a l o f a c tio n s in p e n d in g s ta te c o u r ts p r o v id e s in r e le v a n t p a r t: ( a ) E xc e pta s othe r w i s e e xpr e s s l y pr ovi de d by A c tof C ongr e s s , a ny c i vi l a c t i on br oughti n aS t a t e c our tof w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our t s of the U ni t e d S t a t e s ha ve or i gi na l j ur i s di c t i on, m a y be r e m ove d by the defe nd antor the defendant s, t o the di stri ctcourtof the U ni t ed S t at es fo rth e d is tr ic t a n d d iv is io n e m b r a c in g th e p la c e w h e r e s u c h a c tio n is p e n d in g . F o rp u rp o s e s o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth is c h a p te r , th e c itiz e n s h ip of de fe nda nt s s ue d unde rf i c t i t i ous na m e s s ha l l be di s r e ga r de d. 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 1 ( a ) . I n J ac ks on v . A m e r i c an Sav . M or tgage C or p. , 92 4 F . 2d 19 5, 19 7 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ), w e r evi ew ed the re m ov al of a c as e w hi ch t oo k p l ac e on the sa m e day that th e s ta te c o u r t p la in tif

f f ile d an o tic e o f

a p p e a l in th e s ta te s u p r e m e c o u r t. W e c o n c lu d e d , w ith o u t s p e c if ic a lly a d d r e s s in g th e is s u e , th a t th e c a s e w a s r e m o v a b le u n d e r§ 1 4 4 1 ( a ) n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e n o tic e o f a p p e a l. Id . F ur the r , i n In re S a vers F e d . S a v . & L o a n A s s 'n , 8 7 2 F . 2 d 9 6 3 , 9 6 5

- 6 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) ( p e rc u r i a m ) , we a d d r e s s e d th e is s u e s q u a r e ly a n d c o n f ir m e d th a t, d e p e n d in g o n th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a4

s ta te a c tio n in w h ic h af in a l ju d g m e n t h a d b e e n e n te r e d c o u ld b e r e m o v e d to fe d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t. Th e r e c o r d s h o w s th a t , i n fa c t , th e r e w a s n o p e n d i n g a p p e a l i n th e Su p r e me C ou rtof G eorgi a. E ven i f the st at e a cti on w as pend i ng appeal , ho w ever , F le e tB o s to n c o u ld h a v e r e m o v e d th e s ta te a c tio n to th is C o u r t. Se e J ac ks on , 924 F . 2d at19 7. F urtherm ore, the fa ctthata f i nal j ud gm entw as ent er ed i n st at e c ou rt d o e s n o t p r e c lu d e r e m o v a l in th is in s ta n c e . Se e I n r e Sav e rs F e de ralSav . & L oan A ss ’n , 8 7 2 F .2 d a t 9 6 5

- 6 6 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f f ir m in th is r e s p e c t. II . A s not e d a bove , 28 U . S . C . § 1441( a ) pe r m i t s ade fe nda ntt o r e m ove a ny ci vi l ac t i on brou gh ti n a st at e c ou rtof w hi ch the di stri ctcourt s of the U ni t ed S t at es have ori gi nal j uri sdi cti on . “ T he ri gh tof re m ov al i s s t atut ory; before a par ty m ay a va i l hi m s e l f

of i t , he m us ts how tha the c om e s w i thi n the pr ovi s i ons of the st atut e. ” E dw ards v . E . I. D u P ontD e Ne m ours & C o. , 18 3 F . 2d 16 5, 16 8 (5th C i r. 1 9 5 0 ) .I n G r oom v . M or t i m e rL and C o. , 19 2 F . 84 9, 85 1 (5th C i r. 19 12 ), the court appl i ed a N ew Je rs ey st atut e thatperpetuat ed the exi st ence of a di ss ol ved c o rp o r a tio n fo rth e p u rp o s e o f d e fe n d in g a g a in s t la w s u its . T h e F if th C ir c u it h e ld th a t th e d is s o lv e d c o rp o r a tio n c o u ld r e m o v e th e c a s e f r o m s ta te to fe d e r a l c o u r t.5

Id . A si m i l arG eorgi a s t atut e provi des thata f orei gn , w i thd ra w n corpo ra t i on m ay defe nd i t se l f a gai nstany procee di ng even w i tho uta c er t i fi ca t e of a utho ri ty. G a. C o d e A n n . § 1 4 - 2 - 1 5 0 2 ( d ) . E ve n though F l e e t B os t on w a s di s s ol ve d a nd di d notha ve ac e r t i f i c a t e of a u th o r ity , it h a d th e p o w e rto r e m o v e th e s ta te a c tio n to fe d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t. A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f

f ir m in th is r e s p e c t. III. A c c or di ng t o 28 U . S . C . § 1446( b) , “ [ t ] he not i c e of r e m ova l of

ac i vi l a c t i on .

. . s ha l l be f

i l e d w i thi n thi r ty da y s a f t e rthe r e c e i ptby the de fe nda nt , thr ough s e r vi c e orothe r w i s e , of ac opy of

the i ni t i a l pl e a di ng s e tt i ng for th the c l a i m for r e l i e f upon w hi c h s uc h a c t i on orpr oc e e di ng i s ba s e d. . . . ” S e c t i on 1446( b) ( the t i m e l i ne s s r e qui r e m e nt ) , i s a n e xpr e s s s t a tut or y r e qui r e m e ntforr e m ova l a nd the fai l u re t o co m p l y “ can fai rl y b e sai d t o ren d er th e rem o v al ‘ d efect i v e’ an d j u st i fy a re m and p ursuantt o § 14 47 (c ). ” Snappe r, I nc . v . R e dan , 171 F . 3d 1249, 1253 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . T h e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t a“d e fe n d a n t’s tim e to r e m ove i s tr i gge r e d by s i m ul t a ne ous s e r vi c e of the s um m ons a nd c om pl a i nt , or r e c e i ptof

the c om pl a i nt , ‘ thr ough s e r vi c e orothe r w i s e , ’ a f t e ra nd a pa r tf

r om s e r vi c e of

the s um m ons , butnotby m e r e r e c e i ptof the c om pl a i ntuna tt e nde d by6

any form al se rvi ce . ” M urph y B ros. , Inc. v. M i chet t i P i pe St ri ng i ng , Inc. , 5 2 6 U . S. 3 4 4 , 3 4 7 - 4 8 , 1 1 9 S . C t. 1 3 2 2 , 1 3 2 5 , 1 4 3 L . E d . 2 d 4 4 8 ( 1 9 9 9 ) . G e o r g iala w p r o v id e s th a t: [ p] r oc e s s s ha l l be s e r ve d by the s he r i f f of the c ounty w he r e the a c t i on is b r o u g h t o rw h e r e th e d e fe n d a n t is fo u n d , o rb y s u c h s h e r if f 's d e p u ty , o rb y th e m a r s h a l o rs h e r if f o f th e c o u r t, o rb y s u c h o f f ic ia l's de puty , orby a ny c i t i z e n of the U ni t e d S t a t e s s pe c i a l l y a ppoi nt e d by the c our tfortha tpurpos e , orby s om e one w ho i s notapa r ty a nd i s not y ounge rtha n 18 y e a r s of a ge a nd ha s be e n a ppoi nt e d a s ape r m a ne nt p r o c e s s s e r v e rb y th e c o u r t in w h ic h th e a c tio n is b r o u g h t. G a. C od e A nn . § 9 -11-4(c). G e or gi al a w f

ur the rpr ovi de s tha t : “ [ a ] f t e rthe w i thdr a w a l of

[ afor e i gn] corporati on i s e ff

ec t i ve, se rvi ce of proces s on the S ec re t ar y of S t at e . . . i s s er vi ce on the [ for e i gn] c orpor a t i on. ” G a . C ode A nn. § 14- 2- 1520( c ) . F ur the r , “ [ a ] ny pa r ty tha ts e r ve s pr oc e s s upon the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e . . . s ha l l a l s o m a i l ac opy of the pr oc e s s t o the c hi e f

e xe c ut i ve of

f i c e r , c hi e f

f i na nc i a l of

f i c e r , the s e c r e t a r y of the for e i gn c orpor a t i on, orape r s on hol di ng ac om pa r a bl e pos i t i on a tthe m a i l i ng addres s s etforth [i n the ce rti fi ca t e of w i thd ra w al ] . ” I d. T he U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rt , ho w ever , has hel d thata s t at e s t atut e that a l l ow s ade fe nda ntt o be s e r ve d by s e r vi ng the s t a t e s e c r e t a r y of s t a t e , w i thout m o r e , v io la te s d u e p r o c e s s . Wu c h te rv . P iz z u tti , 276 U . S . 13, 21, 48 S . C t . 259, 261, 72 L . E d. 446 ( 1928) . F ur the r , i n the c ont e xtof s e r vi ng afor e i gn c orpor a t i on7

a u th o r iz e d to tr a n s a c t b u s in e s s in th e s ta te o f G e o r g ia , th e fa ilu r e to c o m p ly s tr ic tly w i th the s t a tut or y r e qui r e m e nt s fors e r vi c e on s uc h c orpor a t i on r e nde r s the a tte m p te d s e r v ic e d e fe c tiv e . H ow ard v . T e c hnosy s te m s C ons ol . C or p. , 536 S . E . 2d 75 3, 75 6 (G a. C t . A pp . 20 00 ). W are d i d n o tp ro p erl y serv e F l eet B o st o n , an d th erefo re, serv i ce o f p ro cess w a s de fe c t i ve . F l e e t B os t on di d notha ve a c tua l not i c e unt i l i tr e c e i ve d ac opy of the com pl ai nton F ebruary 9, 20 05 , and there fore , i tt i m el y r em ov ed on F ebruary 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , wh i c h wa s we l l wi th i n th e 3 0 - d a y s t a tu t o r y p e r i o d . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a f f ir m in th is r e s p e c t. I V.

“ W e r evi ew qu es t i on s of s ubj ec tm att erj uri sdi cti on de no vo . ” M ila n E xpre ss , Inc. v. A ve ri t tE xpre ss , Inc. , 2 0 8 F .3 d 9 7 5 , 9 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . S ect i o n 1 2 5 7 (a) l i m i t s rev i ew o f fi n al j u d g m en t s ren d ered b y th e h i g h est c our tof as t a t e t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C our t . 28 U . S . C . A . § 1257( a ) . T he R ook e r - F e l dm an d o ctri n e ex p l ai n s th atfed eral d i stri ctco u rt s m ay o n l y ex erci se ori gi nal j uri sdi cti on and n otappel l at e j uri sdi cti on ov erst at e c ou rtj ud gm ent s, as th a t is r e s e r v e d u n d e r§ 1 2 5 7 to th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t. See R oo ke r v . F i de l i t y Tr us tC o. , 2 6 3 U .S . 4 1 3 , 4 4 S . C t. 1 4 9 , 6 8 L . E d . 3 6 2 ( 1 9 2 3 ) ; D i s t r i c tof C ol um bi a C our tof

Appe al s v . F e l dm an , 460 U . S . 462, 103 S . C t . 1303, 75 L . E d.8

2 d 2 0 6 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . T he U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rtre ce nt l y r evi si t ed the R ook e r - F e l dm an doc tr i ne i n E

x x on M obi lC or

p. v . Saudi B as i c I

ndus t r i e s C or

p. , 544 U . S . 280, 125 S . C t . 1517, 161 L . E d. 2d 454 ( 2005) . I n E x x on M obi lC or

p. , a def endantw as s ue d i n s t a t e c our t , butc ount e r s ue d i n fe de r a l di s tr i c tc our t . 544 U . S . a t__, 125 S . C t . at15 25 . A ft erthe defendantw on attri al i n st at e c ou rt , the pl ai nt i ff appeal ed to th e s ta te s u p r e m e c o u r t. Id . M e a nw hi l e , the pl a i nt i f f a tt e m pt e d t o di s m i s s the fe d e r a l c a s e , b u t its m o tio n w a s d e n ie d . Id . T he pl ai nt i ff t oo k an i nt er l ocut ory a ppe a l t o the T hi r d C i r c ui tC our tof A ppe a l s , w hi c h on i t s ow n m ot i on r a i s e d the que s t i on of

w he the rs ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on ove rthe c a s e fa i l s unde rthe R ook e r - F e l dm an d o c tr in e b e c a u s e th e c la im s h a d a lr e a d y b e e n litig a te d in s ta te c o u r t. Id . T he U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rtgrant ed ce rti orar i and answ er ed that fe de r a l j ur i s di c t i on ove ra n a c t i on doe s nott e r m i na t e a ut om a t i c a l l y on the e ntr y of ju d g m e n t in th e s ta te c o u r t. Id . at15 26 -27. F urtherm ore, the S up re m e C ou rtst at ed th a t ad is tr ic t c o u r t is n o t w ith o u t s u bje c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n s im p ly b e c a u s e ap a r ty a tte m p ts to litig a te in fe d e r a l c o u r t am a tte rp r e v io u s ly litig a te d in s ta te c o u r t. Id . W ith o u t m o r e , th e C o u r t h e ld th a t E x x o n M o b il h a d n o t r e p a ir e d to fe d e r a l c o u r t to u n d o th e s ta te c o u r t ju d g m e n t, a n d th a t R ook e r - F e l dm an d i d n o tv an q u i sh ju r is d ic tio n a f

te rE x x o n M o b il p r e v a ile d in th e s ta te c o u r t. Id . a t1527- 28.FleetBoston argued that to the extent that Ware’s alleg ations of fe deral law violations 3 wereno t f

ri vo lou s, thedis tric t c ourt had f e deral qu e sti onjurisdic tio n p ur su ant to 2 8 U .S. C. § 1331. The district court ultim ately dismiss ed Ware ’s fe deral law claims. B eca use Ware refers to these claims onlyonce in his initial brief, in the statement of the facts section, and w ithout any citation to leg al authority , these c laims are w aived. See G reenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster , 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 ( 11th Cir. 1989). 9 S ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on i n fe de r a l c our tc a n be found unde re i the r28 U. S. C. § 1 3 3 1 , fe d e r a l q u e s t i o n , o r2 8 U. S. C. § 1 3 3 2 , d i v e r s i ty j u r i s d i c t i o n . To e s t a bl i s h fe de r a l que s t i on j ur i s di c t i on, F l e e t B os t on m us tde m ons tr a t e tha tthe com pl ai ntal l eges a vi ol ati on of const i tut i on al ri gh t s or ari gh tcr ea t ed un der a fed eral l aw . 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 1 . F o r d i v ersi ty j u ri sd i ct i o n , F l eet B o st o n m u st 3 d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e p a r tie s a r e c itiz e n s o f d if fe r e n t s ta te s a n d th a t th e m a tte rin c o n tr o v e r s y e x c e e d s $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 . W he n ac a s e i s r e m ove d t o fe de r a l di s tr i c tc our tunde ror i gi na l j ur i s di c t i on

“ the fe dera l courtt akes i tas [tho ug h] ever ythi ng do ne i n the st at e c ou rthad i n fac t been do ne i n the fe dera l court . ” Sav e l lv . S. R y . C o. , 93 F . 2d 37 7, 37 9 (5th C i r. 1 9 3 7 ). T h erefo re, “ a fed eral d i stri ctco u rtm ay d i sso l v e o r m o d i fy i n j u n ct i o n s, o r d e r s , a n d a ll o th e rp r o c e e d in g s w h ic h h a v e ta k e n p la c e in s ta te c o u r t p r io rto re m ov al . ” M as e da v . H onda M otorC o. , L td. , 86 1 F . 2d 12 48 , 12 52 (11th C i r. 19 88 ). T he R ook e r - F e l dm an do ctri ne do es no tappl y her e bec ause F l ee t B ost on w as i nvoki ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or i gi na l j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe c a s e a nd w a s not10

a p p e a lin g th e s ta te c o u r t ju d g m e n t. Se e E x x on M obi lC or

p. , 544 U . S . a t__, 125 S . C t. a t 1 5 2 7 . T he di stri ctcourt , ho w ever , prop er l y fou nd thati tcoul d exerci se ori gi nal j ur i s di c t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our tha d § 1332 di ve r s i ty j ur i s di c t i on be c a us e the c o n tr o v e r s y e x is te d b e tw e e n c itiz e n s o f G e o r g iaa n d D e la w a r e , a n d th e a m o u n t in controvers y w as w el l abov e the re qu i si t e $75 , 00 0. In addi t i on , the di stri ctcourt ha d § 1331 fe de r a l que s t i on j ur i s di c t i on be c a us e W a r e a s s e r t e d vi ol a t i ons of fed eral st atu t es. F urtherm ore, beca use the st at e a cti on w as prop er l y r em ov ed t o federa l di s tr i c tc our tunde ror i gi na l j ur i s di c t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tha d a uthor i ty t o s e ta s i de o r d e r s o f th e s ta te c o u r t u n d e rR u le 6 0 ( b ) . S e e S a v e ll , 93 F . 2d a t379; w w w M as e da , 861 F . 2d a t1252. I n s um , be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tha d s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on ove rthe ca se , and F l ee t B ost on w as se eki ng t o d ef end agai nstthe ac t i on un der ori gi nal j uri sdi cti on , the R ook e r - F e l dm an do ctri ne do es no tappl y. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm in th is r e s p e c t. AF F I RME D.