Un der Fifth Circuit Rule47 .5, we have determined tha tt hi sopinion should not b e * publishe d an d is not precedent except under thel im it edcircumstances setforth in Fifth Circuit Rule47 .5. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20197 Su m m ar y Cal endar

F E D E R A L LA N D B A N KA S S ’ N O F S O U T H A LA B A M A , F L C A , P l a i n ti ff-T h i rd P a rty D efen d a n t– A pp el l ee v. H & H W O R L D W ID E F IN A N C IA L S E R V IC E , IN C ., D efen d a n t and S T EV EN P
. MOCK, Thi r d Pa r t y D e fe nda nt–Appe l l ant

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- c v- 02832

B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

16, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 20197

2 T h e di st ri ctcourtf

ou n d S t even P
. M ock l i able f or c ivi lconspi racy against t h e F e d e r a lL a n dB a n k A s s o c i a t i o n o f So u t h A l a b a ma , F L CA(t h e “ Ba n k ” )
. O n a p p e a l, M o c k a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e dits d is c r e tio n in fin d in gh im l i able becau se the f

i n alp ret ri alord er sou gh tn o rel i ef againsthi m . M ock fai l ed t o r a i s e t h i s a r g u me n ti n t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t , a n dh e i s b a r r e df r o m d o i n gs o n o w. W e a ffir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t. I . B A CK GRO UND T h e B ank l ent$68. 5 m i l l i on (t he “ Loan”) t o H & H W or l dw i de Fi nanci al Se r vi c e , I nc . ( “ H & H ” )
. M o c k was a n a t t o r ne y anda s e ni o ro f f i c e rf o rH & H
. The B a n k su ed H & H an drelated de fen d a n ts (coll e c tive l y th e “H & H D efen d a n ts”) andJ o hn R. Cr o uc h f or w rong do i ng i n c o nne c t i o n wi t h t he l o an. The Bank al l e ge d t hatt he H & H D e fe nda nt s c o ns pi r e d wi t h Cr o uc h, a n o f f i c e r o f t he Bank, t o com m i tR IC O vi ol ati on s, sec u ri t i es f rau d, com m o n law f rau d, an d other
w r o n g fu l a c ts in co n n e c tio n w ith th e L o a n . T h e H & H D e fe n d a n ts a n s w e r e da n dco u n te r c la im e d , a lle g in gth a t c e r ta in l oa n do cu m en ts w ere i n com p l ete a t exe cu ti on an dthe refore u n en forcea b l e. In
r es ponse , t he B ank f i l ed a t hi r d- par t y c om pl ai ntagai nstM oc k, c l ai m i ng t hat M o c k r e pr e s e nt e d i n wri t i ng t o t he B ankt hatt he l o an do c um e nt s w e r e b i ndi ng a n de n fo r c e a b le
. T h e B a n k c o n te n d e dt h a t if th e lo a n d o c u m e n ts w e r e n o t fu lly
e nf o r c e ab l e , t he n M o c k was l i ab l e t o t he b ankf o rne gl i ge ntm i s r e pr e s e nt at i o n, com m on - l aw f

rau d, an d f

rau du l en t i n du cem en t
. T h e t h i rd- pa rt y com pl ai n tal so c o nt a i n e da c l a i m a g a i n s tM o c k f o rc iv i lc o n s p i r a c y , wh i c h wa s n o tc o n t i n g e nt
o n t he H & H D e fe nda nt s ’s uc c e s s o n t he i rc o unt e r c l ai m . I n as ubs e que nt
am endm e nt , the Bank d r o ppe d the f rau du l en ti n du cem en tcl ai m bu tm ai n t ai n ed t h e neg l i gen tm i srepresentat i on , com m on - l aw f r aud , a nd c ivilc o ns pir ac y cl ai m s. T h e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed t h e H & H D efen da n t s’cou n tercl ai m s, r e nde r i ng m o o tt he Bank’ s t hi r d- pa r t y ne gl i ge ntm i s r e pr e s e nt at i o n a nd f r audN o. 09- 20197

3 c la im s a g a in s t M o c k
. T h e o n lycla im re m a in in ga g a in s t M o c k w a s th e civ il
c o n s p ir a c ycla im
. T h e parti es f

i l ed thei r proposed pretr i alorder. O n app e a l , M ock argu es t hatt he pr e t r i alo r de rdi d no te ve n m e nt i o n hi m . Thi s i s n ota c c ur at e . The pr e t r i alo r de rl i s t e d M o c k a s a ppe ar i ng pr o s e , and t he pr e t r i alor de r ’ s s t at e m e nt of t h e case described M ock as an att orney w h o represented H & H i n conn ect i on w i t h t he l oan c l os i ngs. Al so i n t he st at em entof the c as e, t he B ank ass er t ed t hat i n m ak i n g t h e loans i trel i ed on f rau du l en tst atem en t s m ad e by the defen da n t s, t h a tt h e p r o c e e d s o f

t h e l o a n s we r e u s e df o ru n l a w f

u lp u r p o s e s , a n dt h a ts o me o ra ll o f th e d e fe n d a n ts co m p e n s a te dC r o u c h fo rh is p a r tic ip a tio n . I m m e di at e l y be f

o r e t r i al , t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta s ked t he pa r t i e s (i nc l udi ng M oc k) i n open c our t i f t hey had l oo ked at t he pre t r i alor der
. They i ndi c at ed t hat t h ey h ad
. Th e di st ri ctcourtconf i rm ed that i tw as a j oi n torder and i n st ructed t he pa r t i e s t o s i gn i t
. The di s t r i c t c o ur t al s o c o nf i r m e d t hata l t ho ugh t he Bank haddi s m i s s e d i t s ne gl i gen t m i s r e pr e s e nt at i o n, c o m m o n- l aw f r aud , a nd f rau du l e n t in d u ce m e n t cla im s a g a in st M o ck , th e B a n k stillh a da civ ilconspi racy c l ai m a ga i ns tM o c k. I nde e d, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tno t e d t hatt he c ivi lc o ns pi r acy cl ai m w as t h e onl y reason f or M ock’ s ongoi n g i n vol vem en ti n t h e case. In h i s i n i ti a lap p ea lbrief, M ock arg u es t h a t th e d i stri ct cou rt ab u sed i ts di scr et i on i n fi n di n g h i m li able becau se the f i n alp ret ri alord er s ou gh tno rel i ef aga i n sthi m . In i t s responsi ve bri ef, t h e B an k argues t h at M ock i s barred f rom r ai s i ng t hi s a r gum e nti n t he ap pe l l at e c o ur t be c aus e he fai l e d t o r ai s e i ti n t he d is tr ic t c o u r t. M o c k d idn o t file a re p lyb r ie f. I I . A N A L Y S IS W e have j uri sdi c t i on o ver t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s f i nalj udgm entunder 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1
. M o c k a r gue s t hati m m e di at e l y be f o r e t r i al , he s t at e d i n o p e nc o ur tt hatt he pretr i alorder l i m i t ed the B an k’ s rel i ef a gainsth i m . T h e record does not supp ortN o. 09- 20197

4 t h i s asser t i on . Th e transcri pt of courtproceedi n gs i m m edi atel y bef ore t ri aldoes nots how t hatM oc k m ade any st at em ent s atal l , m uch l es s t hathe ar gued t hat t h e pret ri alorder l i m i t ed the B an k’ s r el i ef
. Fu rt h er, t h e dock etshow s a f l u rry of act ivi t y i n t h e da ys l ead i n g u p to t h e t ri al , bu tnothi n g i n di cat es t h at M ock or
a n y o n e e ls e file da n yd o c u m e n ts re la tin gto th is is s u e . W he n a pa r t y“ fa i l [ s ] t o p r e s e n t[ a n ] a r g u m e n tt o t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t , ” t he p a rty u su a l l y is “b a rred f rom m a k i n g t h is a rg u m en t on ap p ea l
. ” D oev. M yS pa ce, I n c. , 528 F. 3d 413, 422 ( 5t h C i r . 2008)
. “ To avoi d bei n g w aived, an a r g u m e n t‘m u s tb e r a is e dto s u c h a d e g r e e t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u r tm a yr u le o n it .’” B row n v. A m es , 201 F. 3d 654, 663 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng In reF a irc h ild Ai r c r af tCor p. , 6 F .3 d1 1 1 9 , 1 1 2 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 )); seealso S t okes v. E m erson E lect ri c Co. , 2 17 F. 3d3 53 , 3 58 n. 19 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 0) ( “Arg um e nt s no tr ai s e d i n t he di st ri ctcourtcann otbe assert ed f or t h e f i rstt i m e on a p p eal
. ” )
. B ecau se M ock fai l ed to rai se t h i s argum en ti n t h e di st ri ctcourt , h e i s barred f rom rai si n g i ton a p p e a l. M o r e o ve r , M o c k woul d no tpr e va i le ve n i f he w e r e no tbar r e d f r o m r ai s i ng t hi s ar gum ent
. O n appeal , w e r evi ew a t r i al c our t ’ s i nt er pre t at i on of a pr et r i al
o r d e r fo r a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Hallv. S t ateF arm Fi re & Cas. Co. , 937 F. 2d 210, 212

- 13 (5t h C i r. 199 1)
. G en eral l y, w e w i l ln otrevers e un l ess “ [ a] n i ssue or th eo ry[i s] n ot ev en im p l i ci tl y i n cl u d ed in the pr etrialord er.” Morri s v. Hom co Int ’l, I n c. , 853 F. 2d 337, 342 ( 5t h C i r . 1988)
. H er e, i ti s tru e th att he pr et r i al
o r d e r d i d n o t e x p lic itlys ta te th a t t h e B a n k w a s b r in g in ga cla im fo rciv il conspir acy aga i n stM ock. B u tt h e pret ri alorder s t ated th a t M ock w as a de fe nda nta nd d e s c r ibe d hi s r o l e i n t he c o ns pi r ac y. Fur t he r , M o c k k ne w t hatt he B a n k h a db r o u g h t a co n s p ir a c ycla im a g a in s t h im b e c a u s e th a t c la im w a s in both the coun t ercl ai m an d the am e n d e d coun t ercl ai m , an d the di st ri ctcourt rest ated ita tthe beginn i n g of tri al
. A ccor di n gl y, the di st ri ctcou rtd i d n otabu se its d is c r e tio n b yfin d in gM o c k lia b le fo rciv il co n s p ir a c y .N o. 09- 20197

5 W e a ffir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t.