FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 27, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 04- 14455

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o s . 9 8 - 0 2 2 4 2 - CV - A SG & 9 8 - 0 2 2 4 3 CV - A SG F L O R I D A E V E R G R E E N F O L I A G E , C H A N G , A L P H A B O T A N I C A L , I N C ., R I C H A R D A . G A L L A N T , S P R E N G E R S & D R A T H , I N C ., d .b .a . M itc h e ll N u r s e ry F a rm s , J . B . E V E L Y N , V I V E R O S T R O P I C A L E S S .A ., A N D Y C O L E V A L L E , F L O R I D A F O L I A G E E X C H A N G E , A N N A D E G A L E , A S S O C I A T E D G R O W E R S , H E R B K O S L O W , C A M P B E L L 'S F O L I A G E , I N C ., P A T R I C K C A M P B E L L , P L A N T & B L O O M S , J O Y C E W O N G , C O S T A N U R S E R Y , M A R I A C O S T A S M I T H , B I J A N T R O P I C A L , I N C ., R E Z A K A L A N T A R I /B I J A N , d .b .a . B ija n T r o p ic a l, I n c ., R E Z A K A L A N T A R I , R E Z A K A L A N T A R I /G R E E N , d .b .a . G r e e n E x o tic s , R U B Y A . T U R V I N , T U R V I N T R O P I C A L S ,2

L A R R Y L O P E Z , B E L C E N T E R P R I S E S , I N C ., H A T T A W A Y , C A R I B E B R O M E L I A S , I N C ., F A R M O P , I N C ., L I P M A N & L I P M A N , I N C ., W O R L D A G R I C U L T U R E , I N C ., f .k .a . O to m o t, I n c ., P l ai nt i ff s- C ou nt er D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts , W A Y N E T A I , P la in tif f , v ersu s E .I . D U P O N T D E N E M O U R S A N D C O M P A N Y , D ef endant -C ou nt er C la im a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ N o. 04- 14506

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o s . 9 8 - 0 2 2 4 2 - CV - A SG & 9 7 - 0 0 0 6 2 CV - A SG F L O R I D A E V E R G R E E N F O L I A G E , C H A N G , A L P H A B O T A N I C A L , I N C ., R I C H A R D A . G A L L A N T , S P R E N G E R S & D R A T H , I N C ., d .b .a . M itc h e ll N u r s e ry F a rm s , e t a l.,P l ai nt i ff s- C ou nt er D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s , M A Z Z O N I F A R M S , I N C ., aF lo r id aC o rp o r a tio n , J A C K M A R T I N G R E E N H O U S E S , I N C ., f .k .a . M & M O rn a m e n ta ls , I n c ., P la in tif f s , J A C K M A R T I N , P la in tif f s , W A Y N E T A I , P la in tif f , v ersu s E .I . D U P O N T D E N E M O U R S A N D C O M P A N Y , aD e la w a r e c o rp o r a tio n , D ef endant -C ou nt er C la im a n t- A p p e lla n t, C R A W F O R D & C O M P A N Y , aG e o r g iac o rp o r a tio n , D e f e n d a n t. J .B . E V E L Y N , C ou nt er -D ef endant A p p e lle e .Ho no ra bleTh oma s M. Re avley, Unite d State s Circuit Judg efo r t

heF if th C ircuit , * sitti ngby designation. 4

________________________ A pp ea l s f

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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 27, 2006) B efo re P R Y O R , F A Y an d R E A V L E Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * P E R C U R I A M: I . I NT RODUCT I ON T hi s appe a l a r i s e s f

r om tw e nty - e i ghts e pa r a t e c om pl a i nt s f i l e d be tw e e n 1998 a nd 2000 tha tw e r e c ons ol i da t e d f orpr e tr i a l purpos e s . A c ons ort i um of F l or i da f a rm e r s , p la n t n u r s e r ie s , a n d c o rp o r a tio n s ( “G r o w e r s ” ) ap p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f th e ir m o tio n s to a m e n d th e irc o m p la in ts a n d th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t e n te r e d a g a in s t th e ir cl ai m s o f frau d u l en tsett l em en t , sp o i l at i o n , an d rack et eeri n g . D u P o n tcro ssappeal s the sum m ary j ud gm entagai nsti t s c l ai m of brea ch of contra ct . T he di stri ct c ourtde ni e d the G r ow e r s ’ m ot i on t o a m e nd both be c aus e i tw a s unt i m e l y a nd be c aus e i tw oul d ha ve be e n f ut i l e . T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nt a ga i ns tthe G r ow e r s ’ c l a i m s on the ba s i s of ourde c i s i on i n G r e e n L e a f N ur s e ry v. E . I. D uP on tde N ew m ou rs & C o. , 34 1 F . 3d 12 92 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). T he di stri ct courtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm entagai nstD uP on ton i t s c l ai m of brea ch of contra ct5

on the ba s i s of

the opi ni on of

the D e l a w a r e S upr e m e C ourti n E . I . du P ontde N ew m ou rs & C om pany v. F l ori da E vergree n F ol i age, 74 4 A . 2d 45 7 (D el . 19 99 ), w h i c h a n s w e r e d ac e rt i f i e d q u e s t i o n o f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt . W e a f f i rm. I I . B AC KG RO UN D In the ea rl y 199 0s, the G row er s and other part i es ar ou nd the coun trysued D uP on tfor dam ages caused by a D uP on tfung i ci de, B enl at e. T he G row er s a l l eged thatB enl at e w as cont am i nat ed w i th a t ox i c c hem i ca l , sul fonyl urea s, thatki l l ed the i rpl a nt s i ns t e a d of

the f ungus on the i rpl a nt s . N otw i ths t a ndi ng ongoi ng a c c u s a tio n s o f

d is c o v e ry f

r au d a n d litig a tio n m is c o n d u c t a g a in s t D u P o n t in G row er s’ ca se and o ther c as es , D uP on tand the G row er s s ett l ed. T he G row er s rel eased D u P o n tfro m al l cl ai m s an d p ro m i sed n o tt o co m m en ce an y act i o n ag ai n st D u P o n t“ b ased u p o n o r i n an y w ay rel at ed t o an y cau ses o f act i o n , cl ai m s, d e m a n d s , a c tio n s , o b lig a tio n s , d a m a g e s o rliab ilitie s w h ic h a r e th e s u b je c t o f th is R el ea se . ” T he st andard rel ea se al so prov i ded thatthe G row er s w ou l d p ay a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s a nd c os t s f

orD uP ontw e r e the yt o f i l e c l a i m s c ontr a ry t o the r e le a s e . F ol l ow i ng tha ts e tt l e m e nt , e ve nt s turne d f orthe w or s e f

orD uP ont . I n one of th e f ir s t B e n la te c a s e s to g o to tr ia l, I n r e E .I . d u P o n t d e N e m o u r s & C o .– B e n la te L i t i ga t i on, 918 F . S upp. 1524 ( M . D . G a . 1995) ( “ the B us h R a nc h c a s e ” ) , D uP ont6

w a s s a nc t i one d a nd or de r e d t o pa y af i ne of $100 m i l l i on f

orc om m i tt i ng f

r aud on the court , cont em ptof courtand o ther di sc ov ery vi ol at i on s. T he courtfoun d that D u P o n t a n d its in d e p e n d e n t te s tin g c o m p a n y A ltaL ab s , w ith th e k n o w le d g e o f its c o u n s e l A ls to n & B ir d , h a d f a ls if ie d te s t r e s u lts a n d o th e rk e y c o rp o r a te do cum ent s. Id. at15 56 . A ft erw e r ever se d the di stri ctcourti n the B ush R anch ca se on procedural grou nd s, se e 99 F . 3d 36 3 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ), the di stri ctcourt r e f e rr e d the m a tt e rt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt orne y f orpr os e c ut i on, a nd D upont s e tt l e d w i th the B us h R a nc h pa rt i e s f or$ 11. 25 m i l l i on. S e e M a r s uur av. A l s t on & B i rd , 1 6 6 F . 3 d 1 0 0 6 , 1 0 0 8 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) (reco u n t i n g th e h i st o ry o f th e B u sh R a n c h c a s e ) . A ft er l earn i n g o f th e d i sco v ery i n fract i o n s co m m i tt ed b y D u P o n ti n th e B u sh R a nc h c a s e , the G r ow e r s f i l e d the s e l a w s ui t s i n the S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da al l egi ng fr audu l enti nd ucem ent , fr aud o n the court , R IC O vi ol at i on s, and o ther c aus e s of a c t i on. D uP ontf

i l e d ac ount e r c l a i m f

orbr e a c h of

the s e tt l e m e nt a g r e e m e n t . B e c au s e th e s e tt l e m e n ta g r e e m e n t s we r e g o v e rn e d b y De l a war e l a w, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c e rtif

ie d th e f o llo w in g q u e s tio n to th e D e la w a r e S u p r e m e C o u rt:

“ U nd erD el aw ar e l aw , do es the re l ea se i n these se tt l em entagre em ent s bar P l ai nt i ff s’ fr audu l enti nd ucem entcl ai m s? ” I n E . I . D uP ontde N e m our s & C o. v. F l ori da E vergree n F ol i age, 74 4 A . 2d 45 7, the D el aw ar e S up re m e C ou rtrul ed that7

the G r ow e r s w e r e notuna m bi guous l y ba rr e d by the s e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e ntf r om c om pl a i ni ng tha tthe y ha d be e n f r audul e nt l y i nduc e d t o s e tt l e by m i s i nf orm a t i on d u ri n g d i sco v ery. O n A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 0 1 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n te d ju d g m e n t o n th e p le a d in g s in f a vorof D uP onti n one of

the c ons ol i da t e d c a s e s . A n i nt e r l oc ut ory appe a l f r om tha tj udgm e ntw a s he a r d i n thi s C ourta nd, i n G r e e n L e a f N ur s e ry v. E . I . D uP ont de N em ou rs & C o. , 34 1 F . 3d 12 92 , w e a ff i rm ed the di stri ctcourt . W e hel d that F lo rid a law p ro v id es ab so lu te im m u n ity f ro m to rt claim s b as ed o n a p ar ty’s cond uctdu ri ng the course of l i t i gat i on . Id. at13 02 . “ B ec ause D uP on t ’ s a l l eged m is c o n d u c t o c c u rr e d d u r in g th e U n d e r ly in g L itig a tio n a n d du r in g o th e rB e n la te litig a tio n , a c c o r d in g to [ th e S u p r e m e C o u rt o f F lo r id a ], F lo r id ala w c le a r ly prov i des an absol ut e i m m un i ty t o D uP on tfor thei r a l l eged m i sc on du ct . ” I d. at 1303. W e a l s o a f

f i rm e d on the a l t e rna t i ve ba s i s tha t , e ve n i f D uP ontdi d notha ve a n abs ol ut e i m m uni ty , the pl a i nt i f f s c oul d nots how tha tthe y r e a s onabl y r e l i e d on D u P o n t’s m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n s in th e lig h t o f th e p la in tif

f s k n o w le d g e o f

its di s c ove ry vi ol a t i ons i n othe rc a s e s . I d. a t1304- 1308. T h e G r o w e r s o r ig in a lly f ile d am o tio n to m a k e id e n tic a l a m e n d m e n ts to th e ir c om pl a i nt s tw o da y s be f or e the di s tr i c tc ourthe a r d or a l a r gum e nton the m ot i ons c o n s id e r e d in G r e e n L e a f a n d w h ile th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s w ith o u t ju r is d ic tio n to8

grantl ea ve t o fi l e an am ended com pl ai nt . S ee i d. at13 09 . O n rem and, the G row er s m ove d a ga i n t o a m e nd the i rc om pl a i nt s t o a l l e ge ne w vi ol a t i ons of the F l or i da R I C O s ta tu te . D u P o n t m o v e d f o rs u m m ary ju d g m e n t in a ll th e c o n s o lid a te d c a s e s . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtd e n i e d th e G r o w e r s ’ mo t i o n t o a me n d th e i rc o mp l a i n t s . 3 3 6 F. S up p. 2d 12 39 (S . D . F l a. 20 04 ). T he di stri ctcourtre as on ed thatthe G row er s

“ coul d and shou l d h ave m ade a ny nece ss ary a m endm ent s t o thei r pl ea di ng s y ears a go be f or e thi s C ourta nd D uP onte xpe nde d e norm ous t i m e a nd e f f or ti n a ddr e s s i ng th e m eri t s o f th e cl ai m s assert ed o ri g i n al l y. ” Id . at1 2 5 5 . T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so he l d tha tthe a m e nde d c l a i m s w oul d be f ut i l e e i the rbe c aus e the y w oul d be “s u b s ta n tia lly s im ilar ” to c la im s r e je c te d in G r e e n L e a f

o r , a lte rn a tiv e ly , w o u ld f a il t o al l ege aR IC O ent erpri se un der F l ori da l aw . F i nal l y, the di stri ctcourtadop t ed th e d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e D e la w a r e S u p r e m e C o u rt th a t th e s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n t d id no tbar the G row er s f

rom fi l i ng fr audu l enti nd ucem entcl ai m s and grant ed sum m ary ju d g m e n t a g a in s t D u P o n t o n its b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c t c la im . I d . a t 1 2 9 0 . I I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of am ot i on t o a m e nd ac om pl a i ntf ora n abus e of d is c r e tio n . C a m p a g n o n i v . U n ite d S ta te s , 1 7 3 F .3 d 1 3 6 9 , 1 3 7 1 n .7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) .

“ H o w ev er, w h en th e d i stri ctco u rtd en i es th e p l ai n t i ff l eav e t o am en d d u e t o fu t i l i ty, w e r evi ew the deni al de no vo because i ti s c on cl ud i ng thatas a m att erof l aw an9

a m e nde d c om pl a i nt‘ w oul d ne c e s s a r i l y f a i l . ’ ” F r e e m a n v. F i r s tU ni on N a t ’ l . , 329 F . 3d 12 31 , 12 34 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). W e r evi ew a s um m ary ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . I n r e O p tic a l T e c h s ., I n c ., 2 4 6 F .3 d 1 3 3 2 , 1 3 3 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . I V . DI S CUS S I ON O urr e s ol ut i on of

thi s appe a l be gi ns w i th ar e vi e w of the de ni a l of

the G r o w e r s ’ m o tio n to a m e n d th e irc o m p la in t. I f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the G r ow e r s ’ m ot i ons t o a m e nd the i rc om pl a i nt s , the n the di s tr i c tc ourta l s o e rr e d by gr a nt i ng pa rt i a l s um m a ry j udgm e nt s , one f orthe G ro w ers an d th e o th er fo r D u P o n t , b ased o n th e al l eg at i o n s o f th e G ro w ers’ u n am en d ed co m p l ai n t s. F o r th atreaso n , w e d i v i d e o u r d i scu ssi o n i n th ree p art s: fi rst , w e rev i ew th e d en i al o f th e G ro w ers’ m o t i o n t o am en d th ei r co m p l ai n t s; seco n d , w e rev i ew th e p art i al su m m ary j u d g m en tfo r D u P o n to n th e G ro w ers’ cl ai m s; and, thi rd, w e r evi ew the part i al sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of the G row er s o n th e b r e a c h o f

c o n ta c t c la im o f

D u P o n t. A . T h e D istri ct

C o u rt D i d N o t A b u se It s D iscret i o n B

y D en yi n gth e G ro w ers’ Mo t i o n s to A m en d

T h ei r C o m p la i n t s.

“ A pa rty m a y a m e nd the pa rty ’ s pl e a di ng onl y by l e a ve of the c ourtorby w ri tt en co n sen to f th e ad v erse p arty; an d l eav e sh al l b e freely gi v en w h en j u st i ce so r e qui r e s . ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 15( a ) . “ [ U ] nl e s s as ubs t a nt i a l r e a s on e xi s t s t o de ny l e a ve10

t o am end, the di sc re t i on of the D i stri ctC ou rti s notbroad eno ug h t o p erm i tdeni al . ” S hi pne rv. E a s t e rn A i r l i ne s , I nc . , 868 F . 2d 401, 207 ( 11th C i r . 1989) . “ [ A ] m ot i on t o a m e nd m a y be de ni e d on num e r ous gr ounds s uc h a s undue de l a y , undue pr e j udi c e t o the de f

e nda nt s , and f

ut i l i ty of the a m e ndm e nt . ” B r e w e r - G i or gi o v. P rodu ce rs V i deo, Inc. , 21 6 F . 3d 12 81 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( ci t at i on s and i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). “ T he l engthy nature of l i t i gat i on , w i tho utany other ev i d en ce o f p rej u d i ce t o th e d efen d an t s o r b ad fai th o n th e p arto f th e p l ai n t i ffs, do es no tj ust i fydenyi ng the pl ai nt i ff s the op po rtun i ty t o am end thei r c om pl ai nt . ” B ry antv. D up re e, 25 2 F . 3d 11 61 , 11 64 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed G row er s’ m ot i on t o am end b ec ause of un t i m el i ness and fut i l i ty. W e a dd re ss ea ch gr ound i n turn. T h e G r o w e r s a r g u e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d th e irm o tio n s to a m e n d th e ir c om pl a i nt s s ol e l yba s e d on the “ l e ngthy na tur e of the l i t i ga t i on” or“ m e r e pa s s a ge of t i m e . ” W e di s a gr e e . T he di s tr i c tc ourtr e f e r e nc e d the l e ngth of

t i m e be tw e e n the or i gi na l c om pl a i nt s a nd the G r ow e r s ’ m ot i on t o a m e nd t o e xpl a i n i t s f i ndi ng of undue de l a y . S e e M a y na r d v. B . of R e ge nt s of

D i v. of U ni vs . of

F l a . D e p’ tof E duc . , 342 F . 3d 1281, 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( “ B e c aus e w e c onc l ude tha t[ the pl a i nt i f f ] ha s f a i l e d t o s how good c aus e f orthe e l e ve nth houra m e ndm e nt , w e f i nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by e nf or c i ng i t s t i m e t abl e f

or11

di sposi t i on of the ca se . ”) . T he di stri ctcourtfoun d, and the G row er s a dm i tt ed, that th e y k n e w ab o u t th e p o s s ib ility o f F lo r id aR I C O c la im s w h e n th e y f ile d th e ir ori gi nal fe dera l com pl ai nt s. In fa ct , the G row er s’ l i ai son cou nsel re pres ent ed p artie s w h o h a d a r g u e d th e s e v e ry c la im s a g a in s t D u P o n t to aju ry in s ta te c o u rt. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e a s o n ab ly f o u n d th a t th e G r o w e r s w a ite d to o lo n g to f ile pr ope r l y am ot i on t o a m e nd the i rc om pl a i nt s . T he G r ow e r s di d notm ove t o a m e nd the i rc om pl a i nt s unt i l a f t e rthe di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d am ot i on t o di s m i s s a s t o a l l the c l a i m s , gr a nt e d j udgm e nton the pl e a di ngs a s t o one pa rty , c e rt i f i e d que s t i ons t o the S upr e m e C ourt s of

D e l a w a r e a nd F l or i da , a nd c e rt i f i e d i t s j udgm e nton the pl e a di ngs f

ori nt e r l oc ut ory r e vi e w i n thi s C ourt . S e e , e . g. , G r e gory v. M i t c he l l , 634 F . 2d 199, 202- 03 ( 5th C i r . J a n. 1981) ( a f f i rm i ng de ni a l of

l e a ve t o a m e nd s ought af t erm ot i on t o d i sm i ss and m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm enthad b ee n t aken un der a d v is e m e n t) . M o r e o v e r , th e G r o w e r s o f f e r e d n o g o o d r e a s o n f

o rth e ird e la y . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o r e a s o n ab ly f o u n d th a t to a llo w a n a m e n d m e n t a t th is st age of the l i t i gat i on w ou l d p re j ud i ce D uP on ti n d ef

endi ng i t s c on curr entfe dera l and st at e c ou rtac t i on s. P art i es t o com pl ex m ul t i -j uri sdi ct i on al l i t i gat i on oft en se ek t o l ever age f

i nal deci si on s i n o ne j uri sdi ct i on i n cas es st i l l pend i ng i n o ther j ur i s di c t i ons , butthe r e a r e l i m i t s t o how l ong l i t i ga nt s c a n de l a yf e de r a l pr oc e e di ngs i n the hope tha tc onc urr e ntl i t i ga t i on e l s e w he r e w i l l pr oduc e f a vor abl e i nt e rve ni ng12

pr e c e de nt s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtf ound tha t“ [ t ] he pr e

j udi c e t o D uP ontr e s ul t s f r om the p r e ju d ic e to th e ju s tic e s y s te m its e lf . F a ilin g to r a is e th e s e is s u e s p r e v io u s ly . . . p la c e s th e D u P o n t, th e E le v e n th C ir c u it, a n d m y s e lf in ap o s itio n w h e r e is s u e s in thi s c a s e a r e be i ng r e s ol ve d i n api e c e m e a l f a s hi on w i th no l ogi c a l c onc l us i on. ” 336 F . S upp. 2d a t1257. T he l i be r a l a m e ndm e ntpol i c y of R ul e 15( a ) doe s not co u n t en an ce “ th e o l d sp o rt i n g th eo ry o f j u st i ce” o r th e u se o f th e fed eral co u rt s as a f o ru m f o rte s tin g a lte rn a te le g a l th e o r ie s s e r ia tim . F r e e m a n v . C o n tin e n ta l G in C o ., 381 F . 2d 459, 469- 70 ( 5th C i r . 1967) ; 6 C HARL ES A LAN W RI GH T & A RTHUR R. M IL L ER , F ED ERAL P RACTI CE AND P RO CE DURE § 1 4 8 9 ( 2 d e d . 1 9 8 7 ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng the G r ow e r s ’ m ot i on to a m e n d a s u n tim e ly . W e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s th e a lte rn a tiv e g r o u n d o f f u tility . W e a f f i rm the de ni a l of

the G r ow e r s ’ m ot i on t o a m e nd. B . Su m m a ry Ju d

g m en t A g a i n st T h e G ro w ers W

a s P ro p er. B e c au s e th e r e is n o w a y to d if f e r e n tia te th e c la im s th a t w e a d d r e s s e d in G r e e n L e a f

f r om the G r ow e r s ’ c l a i m s i n thi s c a s e , the G r ow e r s do note ve n a tt e m pt to d o s o . I n s te a d , th e y d ir e c tly c h a lle n g e th r e e o f o u rc o n c lu s io n s in G r e e n L e a f . W e are no tatl i berty t o chang e our m i nd as t o any of these concl usi on s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. H og an, 98 6 F . 2d 13 64 , 13 69 (11th C i r. 19 93 ) ( “ Iti s the fi rm l y e st abl i shed ru l e o f th i s C i rcu i tth ateach su cceed i n g p an el i s b o u n d b y th e h o l d i n g o f th e fi rst13

panel t o add re ss an i ss ue of l aw , un l es s and un t i l thatho l di ng i s overrul ed en banc, or by the S up re m e C ou rt . ”) . F i r s t , i n G r e e n L e a f

, w e he l d tha tthe pl a i nt i f f s ’ f r aud c l a i m s f

a i l e d be c aus e of th e ab s o lu te im m u n ity f o rlitig a tio n c o n d u c t u n d e rF lo r id ala w . “[ A ]b s o lu te i m m un i ty m ustbe af

forded t o any ac toccurr i ng du ri ng the course of a j ud i ci al proceedi ng , re gardl es s of w hether the ac ti nv ol ves adefa m at ory s t at em entor other t ort i ous be ha vi or. . . s o l ong a s the a c tha s s om e r e l a t i on t o the pr oc e e di ng. ” L e vi n, M i ddl e br ooks , M abi e , T hom a s , M a y e s & M i t c he l l , P . A . v. U . S . F i r e I ns . C o. , 639 S o. 2d 60 8 (F l a. 19 94 ). T he G row er s argue thatou r dec i si on has bee n u nd erm i ned b yth e p a s s a g e o f

tim e . T he G row er s argue that , si nce G re en L ea f, F l ori da l i t i gat i on i m m un i ty has be e n c urt a i l e d. I n I nga l s be v. S t e w a rtA ge nc y , 869 S o. 2d 30 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 2 0 0 4 ), th e F l o ri d a C o u rto f A p p eal s fo r th e F o u rth D i stri ctal l o w ed th e att o rn eys w ho r e pr e s e nt e d apl a i nt i f f i n al e m on l a w s ui tt o br i ng a n a c t i on f ort ort i ous in te r f e r e n c e o n th e g r o u n d s th a t th e s e ttle m e n t b y th e au to m o b ile d e a le r s h ip w ith the pl ai nt i ff

i nt er fe re d w i th the att orney’ s f ee agre em ent . T he courtconcl ud ed that

“ [ n ] o l e g i t i ma t e i n t e r e s to f D e a l e ra n d Cl i e n ti n s e tt l i n g th e i rd i s p u t e g i v e s th e m a pri vi l ege t o i nt er fe re w i th L aw ye r' s f ee contra cti n such a w ayas t o res tri ctthe fe e du e t o o nl y the l ow es tam on g the contra ct ' s r ea sonabl e a l t ernat i ves. ” 869 S o. 2d at14

3 3 . T he ar gu m entof the G row er s f ai l s. In contra stw i th Ing al sbe, the G row er s a lle g e to rtio u s c o n d u c t a g a in s t a n o p p o s in g litig a n t p r e m is e d o n th e m a n n e rin w hi ch i tcond uct ed core l i t i gat i on ac t i vi t i es . T he al l egat i on s of the G row er s are d is tin c t b o th in k in d a n d d e g r e e f r o m th e a lle g a tio n s o f

to rtio u s in te r f

e r e n c e w ith p r o f e s s io n a l a c tiv itie s a d d r e s s e d in I n g a ls b e . I n J a c k s o n v . B e llS o u th T e l e c om m uni c a t i ons , 372 F . 3d 1250 ( 11th C i r . 2004) , w e appl i e d the F l or i da litig a tio n im m u n ity to as e ttle m e n t f r au d c la im . W e h e ld th a t “[ t]h e r a tio n a le un derl yi ng Ingal sbe i s noti m pl i ca t ed here, w here the appel l ant s have notal l eged a ny i nt e r f

e r e nc e w i th the i roc c upa t i ons orothe rpr of e s s i ona l a c t i vi t i e s . ” I d. a t1276 n. 26. S ec on d, the G row er s e rr on eousl y c hal l enge another a spec tof ou r e ar l i er de c i s i on. I n G r e e n L e a f , w e a l s o he l d tha tthe pl a i nt i f f s c oul d ne i the rpr ove c o m m o n la w f

r au d n o rm a il a n d w ir e f r au d a s am a tte ro f

la w b e c au s e th e y c o u ld notha ve r e a s onabl y r e l i e d on a ny a l l e ge d m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on by D uP ont . 341 F . 3d a t1305. T he G r ow e r s a r gue tha tr e l i a nc e i s nota n e l e m e ntof “ ne ga t i ve f

r aud” or c onc e a l m e nt , butthe G r ow e r s c i t e no F l or i dal a w t o s upportthi s the ory . T he G r ow e r s a l s o pr ovi de no ba s i s f ordi f f e r e nt i a t i ng the i rc om pl a i nt s f r om the a l l e g a t i o n s th a tDu P o n t“ i n t e n t i o n a l l y c o n c e a l e d B e n l a t e ’ s d e f e c t s ” th a twe15

consi dere d i n G re en L ea f. W e r ei t er at e our previ ou s rul i ng : “ B ec ause P l ai nt i ff s w e r e r e p r e s e n te d b y c o u n s e l, w e r e in a n a n ta g o n is tic a n d d is tru s tin g r e la tio n s h ip w i th D uP on t , and sett l ed l i t i gat i on thati ncl ud ed ac cusa t i on s of f raud and o ther d is h o n e s t c o n d u c t b y D u P o n t, [ th e G r o w e r s ] c o u ld n o t r e a s o n ab lyo rju s tif iab ly r e ly on a ny of

D uP ont ’ s m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons . ” I d. a t1305. F i na l l y , i n G r e e n L e a f

, w e he l d tha tapl a i nt i f

f m us ta l l e ge the de s truc t i on of e vi de nc e a s oppos e d t o the c onc e a l m e ntof e vi de nc e t o s t a t e ac l a i m f ors poi l a t i on o f ev i d en ce u n d er F l o ri d a l aw . Id . at1 3 0 8 -0 9 . W i th o u tci t i n g co n tro l l i n g au th o ri ty, the G r ow e r s a r gue tha t“ unde rF l or i dal a w , as poi l a t i on pl a i nt i f f ne e d nota l l e ge a nd pr ove tha tthe de f

e nda ntde s tr oy e d e vi de nc e . ” W e di s a gr e e . “ C onc e a l m e ntof e vi de nc e . . . doe s notf

orm aba s i s f

orac l a i m of

s pol i a t i on. ” J os tv. L a kl a nd R e gi ona l M e d. C tr . , 844 S o. 2d 656, 658 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 2003) . W e a f f i rm the p artia l s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f D u P o n t. C . P art i alSu m m ary J

ud gm ent i n Favor of

the G row er

s on the B re ach o

f C on tract C lai m of D uP on t W as P roper . D uP onta r gue s tha tthe G r ow e r s br e a c he d the s e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e ntby f i l i ng sui tbase d o n i t s c on du cti n the un derl yi ng l i t i gat i on , bu tthe di stri ctcourtgrant ed s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f

a vorof the G r ow e r s on thi s i s s ue . T he s e tt l e m e nt a gr e e m e nt s pr ovi de tha tthe y a r e gove rne d by D e l a w a r e l a w . R e s pondi ng t o a16

qu es t i on ce rt i fi ed by the di stri ctcourti n thi s c as e, the S up re m e C ou rtof D el aw ar e rul e d tha tthe ge ne r a l r e l e a s e of c l a i m s i n the s e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e ntdi d not una m bi guous l y ba rc l a i m s pr e m i s e d on f r audul e nti nduc e m e ntt o s e tt l e . E . I D upont v. F l or i daE ve r gr e e n F ol i a ge , 744 A . 2d 457. A lth o u g h D u P o n t a n d th e G r o w e r s a g r e e th a t F lo r id aE v e r g r e e n F o lia g e is c ontr ol l i ng author i ty , the y ur ge di ve r ge nti nt e rpr e t a t i ons . T he G r ow e r s a r gue , on th e o n e h a n d , th a t th e D e la w a r e S u p r e m e C o u rt c r e a te d ab r ig h t- lin e ru le th a t a c la im to f

r au d u le n t in d u c e m e n t to s e ttle c a n o n ly b e w a iv e d b y as p e c if ic r e le a s e . T he G row er s bas e thei r argum enton the fol l ow i ng st at em ent s i n F l ori da E vergree n F ol i a ge : “ A tam i ni m um , i f one pa rty i s t o be he l d t o r e l e a s e ac l a i m f orf r aud i n the e xe c ut i on of

the r e l e a s e i t s e l f

, the r e l e a s e s houl d i nc l ude as pe c i f i c s t a t e m e ntof e x c u lp a to ry la n g u a g e r e f e r e n c in g th e f

r au d ” a n d “th e ab s e n c e o f as p e c if ic re fe re nce t o the ac t i on abl e f raud l i m i t s the sc op e of the general re l ea se i n thi s c as e. ” I d . a t 4 6 1 . D u P o n t a r g u e s , o n th e o th e rh a n d , th a t th e r e q u ir e m e n t o f s p e c if ic l angu age onl y app l i es t o am bi gu ou s s ett l em entagre em ent s w i tho utother i nt erpret at i ve evi dence. A l so qu ot i ng F l ori da E vergree n F ol i age, D uP on tar gu es tha ta s “ the pa rty s e e ki ng e nf or c e m e ntof

the [ a m bi guous ] r e l e a s e ” i ts houl d be a l l ow e d t o of

f e re xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e tha t“ the r e l e a s e d f r aud c l a i m w a s w i thi n the c ont e m pl a t i on of

the r e l e a s i ng pa rty . ” I d. a t461.17

W e a gr e e w i th the G r ow e r s ’ r e a di ng of F l or i daE ve r gr e e n F ol i a ge . T he S upr e m e C ourtof

D e l a w a r e e xpl a i ne d tha tthe G r ow e r s ’ c l a i m f orf r audul e nt i nd ucem entt o sett l e i s ase para t e c l ai m fr om the un derl yi ng ac t i on and n otcovered by the ge ne r a l r e l e a s e a nd c ove na ntnott o s ue . B e c aus e the a l l e ge d f r audul e nt cond uct“ subsi st s s epar at e f rom , and n ec es sari l y occ urre d aft er , ” the cond uct f orm i ng the ba s i s of

the unde r l y i ng l i t i ga t i on, as pe c i f i c w a i ve rof

ac l a i m of f r audul e nti nduc e m e ntw a s ne c e s s a ry t o r e l e a s e tha tc l a i m . I d. a t462; s e e a l s o M a r s u u r a , 1 6 6 F .3 d a t 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 ( p r e d ic tin g th a t th e D e la w a r e S u p r e m e C o u rt w o u ld i m pos e ac l e a rs t a t e m e ntr e qui r e m e ntf orthe r e l e a s e of

f r audul e nti nduc e m e nt c l a i m s ) . T he de c i s i on of the D e l a w a r e S upr e m e C ourtf or e c l os e s the c l a i m of D u P o n t th a t th e G r o w e r s b r e a c h e d th e ira g r e e m e n ts . V . CONCL US I ON T h e j u d g m en to f th e d i stri ctco u rti s A FFI R M ED .