# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 30 00

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Mo un ta in Hom e Fl ig ht Serv ic e, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Bax te r Co un ty, Ark an sa s; Bax te r Co un ty A irp or t Co m m is si on ; M acM an n Avi at io n F ue li ng , LLC; Fl y Arka ns as , LLC; Ch arl es Hoo pe r; I ra Do ug Ch at m an ; Tay lo r Sco tt ; Co un ty Jud ge Dan Hal l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Har ris on

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

16 , 20 14
Fil ed : J ul y

15 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Mo un t a in Hom e Fl ig ht Serv ic e, In c. (MHFS ) br ou gh t su it ag ai ns t Bax te r

Co un ty, Ark an s a s (th e Co un ty), th e Bax te r Co un ty Airp or t Co m m is si on (th e Co m m is si on ), an d va rio us rel at ed en ti ti es an d in di vi du al s fo r in te rfer in g wit h it s
bu si ne ss op erat io ns at th e Bax te r Co un ty Airp or t. Mo re sp eci fic al ly, MHFS cl ai m sth e Co un ty an d th e Co m m is si on act ed in co nc ert wit h ot he rs to in te rfer e wit h

MHFS’s ai rp or t op erat io ns

. In ad di ti on to as se rti ng st at e la w br each of co nt ract an d

to rt cl ai m s, MHFS br ou gh t a § 19 83 act io n al le gi ng th at th e Co un ty an d th e

Co m m is si on vi ol at ed it s rig ht to du e pr oc es s. Bec au se MHFS was as se rti ng a fed eral

qu es ti on , MHFS fil ed it s c l a i ms i n fed eral co ur t. The de fen da nt s fil ed m ot io ns to 1

di sm is s. In res po ns e to th e de f e n d a n t s ’ moti on to di sm is s, th e di st ric t co ur t 2

di sm is se d th e en ti re cas e by (1 ) gr an ti ng de fen da nt s’ m o t i o n to di sm is s, (2 )

di sm is si ng an ad di ti on al cl ai m su a sp on te

, an d (3 ) de cl in in g to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l
juri sd ic ti on ov er rem ai ni ng st at e la w cl ai m s. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n un de r 28 U.S.C.
§ 1 29 1, we af

fir m

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In 19 92

, MHFS si gn ed a le as e wit h th e Co m m is si on , on be ha lf of th e Co un ty,

to le as e sp ace at th e Bax te r Co un ty Airp or t to bu il d an ai rcra ft ha ng ar (MHFS ha ng ar)

an d to pr ov id e ai rcra ft- rel at ed se rv ic es , su ch as ai rcra ft ren ta l, ai rcra ft m ai nt en an ce,

an d fli gh t-t rai ni ng at th e ai rp or t. In it s le as e, MHFS ag reed to ab id e by “ al l Mi ni m um

St an da rd s an d Ru le s an d Reg ul at io ns pr es cri be d by th e Co m m is si on .” Late r, in 19 93

, th e Co m m is si on fo rm al ly ad op te d “ Mi ni m um St an da rd s , ” whi ch pu rp or te dl y

go ve rn ed m an y as pe ct s of MHFS’s co nd uc t, in cl ud in g reg ul at in g th e se rv ic es of fere d

an d req ui rin g ap pr o v a l of th e ai rp or t m an ag er be fo re MHFS co ul d ta ke cert ai n

act io ns

.

The di st ric t cou rt had juri sd ic ti on to he ar the fed eral cl ai m s un de r 28 U.S.C. 1 § 13 31 an d su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er th e rem ai ni ng st at e la w c la im s u n d e r 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 36 7.

The Hon or ab le P. K. Hol m es , III, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 2

th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-MHFS was no t t he so le op erat or at t he ai rp or t. In 19 87 , sev eral y ears be fo re

MHFS le as ed sp ace a t th e ai rp or t, Doyle Lin ck an d Hug h McC la in si gn ed a le as e (Lin ck le as e) wit h th e Co un ty. The Lin ck le as e al lo wed Li n ck an d McC la in to

op erat e a ha ng ar (L i n c k ha ng ar) th at pr ov id ed co m pe ti ng se rv ic es an d so ld ai rcra ft

fu el . MHFS was on e o f Lin ck ’s a nd McC la in ’s f ue l cu st om ers

. In 19 94 , ho wev er,

Lin ck an d McC la in refu se d to co nt in ue pr ov id in g fu el to MHFS. MHFS th en be ga n

it s own fu e l s e r v i c e s in co m pe ti ti on wit h Lin ck an d McC la in

. In 19 96

, MHFS

acq ui red th e Lin ck le as e, an d wit h it

, us e of th e Lin ck ha ng ar. W hi le th e reco rd is no t

en ti rel y cl ear, it ap pe ars th at fro m 1 99 6 un ti l at le as t 20 06 MHFS op erat ed bo th

ha ng ars —t he Lin ck ha ng ar an d th e MHFS ha ng ar— as on e co m bi ne d op erat io n.
Thro ug ho ut th is lat er p eri od , MHFS h ad no co m pe ti ti on at t he ai rp or t fo r an y of i ts

se rv ic es

.

In 20 03

, MHFS at te m

pt ed to di ve st pa rt of it s op erat io n by se ll in g th e MHFS

ha ng ar to Les Ives fo r $2 12 ,00 0. The de al fel l th ro ug h bec au se Iv es was ul ti m at el y

un ab le to pe rfo rm un de r th e pu rch as e ag reem en t. Nev ert he le ss , MHFS an d Iv e s

r each ed an ag reem en t fo r Iv es to us e th e MHFS ha ng ar un de r a m on th -to -mo n t h

le as e, whi ch he di d fo r a n um be r of y ears th erea fte r.

In Nov em be r of 20 04

, Dan Hall was el ect ed co un ty jud ge fo r Bax te r Co un ty.

Hall th en ap po in te d Ch arl es Hoo pe r to act as co m m i s s i on er of th e Bax te r Co un ty Airp or t Co m

m is si o n

. Th e r el at io ns hi p be twee n MHFS on th e on e si de an d th e

Co un ty an d th e Co m

m is si on on th e ot he r ap pe ars to ha ve de te rio rat ed aft er Hall an d

Hoo pe r to ok of

fic e. Nearl y a l l o f MHFS’s cl ai m s rel at e to act io ns ta ke n by th e

Co un ty and th e Co m

m is si on whi le Hall an d Ho op er were in off ic e. Thu s, M HFS’s

cl ai m s ag ai ns t Hall an d Hoo pe r as in di vi du al s su bs ta nt ia ll y ov erl ap wit h th os e agai nst

th e Co un ty and th e Co m

m is si on

.

St art in g in 20 05

, Co un ty an d Co m m is si on of

fic ia ls be ga n pu rs ui ng ad di ti on al

op erat or s fo r th e ai rp or t. I n Octo be r 20 05

, MHFS ag ai n tri ed to se ll th e MHFS

-3

-ha ng ar, th is ti m e t o C h r is Free m an fo r $2 00 ,00 0. The Co m m is si on wit hh el d it s

ap pr ov al fo r th is sa le

, whi ch was req ui red un de r th e le as e, an d th e de al fel l th ro ug h.

In Nov em be r 20 05

, an ot he r bu y er, Dean Sh ul ts

, of fere d to pu rch as e th e Lin ck ha ng ar (an d rel at ed op erat io ns ) fo r $7 00 ,00 0. Howev er, be fo re th e sa le was fin al iz ed Sh ul ts

wit hd rew hi s of

fer. MH F S b l a m es th e Co m m is si on fo r Free m an ’s an d Sh ul ts ’

wit hd rawal s an d fo r it s in ab il it y to se l l i t s a i rp or t op erat io ns

. MHFS co nt en ds th at

th e Co m m is si on in te rfer ed wit h th e pr op os ed s al es be cau se th e Co m m is si on it se lf

wan te d to bu y MHFS’s op erat io ns

. Afte r th e un su cces sf ul at te m pt s at a pr iv at e sa le

, MHFS of fere d to se ll it s c o mb i ne d op erat io n, in cl ud in g bo th th e Lin ck an d MHFS

ha ng ars , for $9 50 ,00 0 to th e Co m m is si on . M HFS n ot es th at it ba se d t hi s v al ua ti on

on a 20 04 ap pr ai sa l th at es ti m at ed th e co m bi ne d op erat io n was wor th $9 00 ,00 0, an d

on th e Free m an an d Shu lt s offe rs to bu y th e Lin ck an d MHFS ha ng ars in di vi du al ly,

whi ch in co m

bi na ti on was a to ta l of $9 00 ,00 0. The Co m m is si on res po nd ed wit h a

co m pe ti ng ap pr ai sa l an d a n o ffer of $ 65 0,0 00 . MHFS rejec te d t hi s o ffer

.

The Co m m is si on al so be ga n co ns id eri ng pl an s to bu il d it s own ha ng ar at th e

Bax te r Co un ty Airp or t to co m pe te wit h MHFS. MHFS al so su gg es ts th e Co m m is si on

ap pr oa ch ed Iv es to le as e th e pr op os ed Bax te r Co un ty ha ng a r in st ead of co nt in ui ng

to le as e th e MHFS ha ng ar. MHFS fu rth er su gg es ts th e Co mm i s s i o n o ffer ed Iv es
lo wer ren t an d m

uc h m or e fav or ab le ter m s, s om e o f whi ch di d no t co m pl y wit h th e

Co m m is si on ’s “ Mi ni m

um St an da rd s.” Afte r so m e de la y s, co ns tru ct io n of th e Bax te r

Co un ty han ga r fi na ll y

be ga n i n 2 00 7.

In 20 06

, th e Co m

m is si on en te red an ag reem en t wit h Mac Man n Avi at io n Fu el

, LLC, own ed by Ira Ch at m an , t o bu il d a co m pe ti ng se lf- se rv ic e fu el ser vi ce s ta ti on

. MHFS ob jecte d to th is op erat io n, as se rti n g in pa rt th at th e pr op os al di d no t req ui re

Mac Man n to co m

pl y wit h th e sa m e “ Mi ni m um St an da rd s” MHFS ha d a g r e e d t o in

i t s le as e. In 20 10

, th e Co m m is si on en te red a le as e wit h Fl y Ark an sa s, LLC, a

co m pa ny st art ed by Tay lo r Sco t t

, t o l e a s e a te rm in al bu il di ng at th e ai rp or t. Fl y

Ark an sa s was go in g t o s ta rt c om pe ti ng wit h M HFS fo r fu el sal es

. Pri or to en te rin g

-4

-th e le as e wit h th e Co m m is si on , Sco tt ha d be en a te na nt of MHFS, se ll in g hi s se rv ic es

as a pi lo t fo r hi re. MHFS al le ge s Sco tt us ed hi s acce ss to th e MHFS faci li ti es to se nd

m ai le rs to al l MHFS’s cu st om ers an no un ci ng th at Fl y Ark an sa s wou ld no w be se ll in g

fu el at lo wer pr ic es th an MHFS. Acco rd in g to MHFS, th e Fl y Ark a ns as le as e, li ke

th e Mac Man n ag reeme nt

, al so vi ol at ed th e “ Mi ni m um St an da rd s” th at pr es um ab ly

go ve rn ed th e co nd uc t o f al l b us in es se s o pe rat in g a t t he air po rt.

In Feb ru ary 20 12

, MHFS fil ed su it in fed eral di st ric t co ur t al le gi ng th e Co un ty,

th e Co m m is si on , an d va rio us rel at ed en t i t i es an d in di vi du al s in te rfer ed wit h it s
bu si ne ss op era t i o n s a t t he Bax te r Co un ty Airp or t. In it s co m pl ai nt

, MHFS as se rts

ni ne te en cla im s: (1) on e cl ai m fo r br each of co nt ract ; (2 ) twel ve cla im s fo r to rti ou s

in te rfer en ce with a b us in es s ex pe ct an cy , as se rti ng bo th in te rfer en ce and co ns pi racy

to in te rfer e; (3 ) two du e pr oc es s cl ai m s u n d e r 4 2 U

. S .C. § 19 83 an d two id en ti cal

st at e la w cl ai m s un de r A.C.A. § 16 -1 23 -1 05 ; (4 ) on e cl ai m fo r il le ga l ex act io n un de r

A.C.A. § 14 -3 57 -1 05 (b ); an d (5 ) on e cl ai m fo r vi ol at in g th e Ark an sa s Ope n Mee ti ng s Act, i n v io la ti on of A.C.A. § 14 -1 4- 11 9.

The de fen da nt s fil ed m ot io ns to di sm is s. In res po ns e, t h e d is tri ct co ur t

di sm is se d th e en ti re cas e. In do in g so , th e di st ric t co ur t: (1 ) gr an te d th e de fen da nt s’

m ot io n to di sm is s as to th e to rt cl ai m s an d ci vi l rig ht s cl ai m s; (2 ) di sm is se d th e
br each of co nt ract cl ai m su a sp on te ; an d (3 ) de cl i n e d to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l
juri sd ic ti on ov er th e rem ai ni ng st at e la w cl ai m s. MHFS’s co nt ract cl ai m , to rt cl ai m s,

an d ci vi l rig ht s cl ai m s were al l di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e. The di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed

to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er th e two rem ai ning sta te la w cl ai m s— il le ga l

ex act io n an d v i o l a t i o n of th e Ark an sa s Ope n Mee ti ng s Act— an d di sm is se d th em
wit ho ut pr ejud ic e. MHFS th en fil ed a mo t i on to al te r jud gm en t an d am en d it s

co m pl ai nt . The d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n.

MHFS ap pe al s th e m eri ts of t h e d is m is sa l as well as th e de ni al of it s

po st -d is m is sa l m ot io n t o a lt er jud gm en t an d a m en d i ts co m pl ai nt

.

-5

-II . Dis cus si on

A. Moti on to Di smis s

W e rev ie w th e gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s de no vo an d co ns tru e al l reas on ab le

in fere nc es in fav or of th e no nm ov in g pa rty. Dun ba r v. W el ls Farg o, N.A., 70 9 F.3 d

12 54

, 12 56 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). “To s u r v i ve a m ot io n to di sm is s, a co m pl ai nt m us t

co nt ai n su ffi ci en t fact ua l m at te r, acce pt ed as t r u e , t o ‘stat e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is
pl au si bl e on it s face .’ ” Ash cro ft v. Iq ba l, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 67 8 (2 00 9) (q uo ti ng Bel l

Atl an ti c Co rp

. v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 55 4, 57 0 (2 00 7) ). “ A cl ai m ha s faci al
pl au si bi li ty whe n th e pl ai nt iff pl ead s fact ua l co nt en t th at al lo ws th e co ur t to dr aw th e

reas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e de fen da nt i s l i a b le fo r th e m is co nd uc t al le ge d.” Id

. (ci ti ng Twom

bl y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 6)

.

MHFS arg ue s t h a t t h e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng it s cl ai m s fo r br each

of co nt ract

, in te nt io na l in te rfer en ce wit h it s bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi ps , an d al le ge d ci vi l
rig ht s vi ol at io ns

. In pa rti cu la r, MHFS no te s th e d e f e n d a n ts di d no t ad dr es s th e

su bs ta nc e of th e br each of co nt ract cl ai m in th ei r m ot io ns to di sm is s an d su gg es ts it

was un fai r fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to di sm is s th is cl ai m su a sp on te

, wit ho ut pr io r no ti ce

an d an op po rtu ni ty to res po nd

. As fo r th e to rt cl ai m s al le g e d

, M H F S p u rs ue s on

ap pe al on ly fo ur of th e twel ve or ig i n al cl ai m s. MHFS m ai nt ai ns th at it pl ed 3

su ffi ci en t fact s in th es e fo ur cla im s, as well as i n t he du e p ro ces s cl ai m s, to su rv iv e

a m ot io n t o d is m is s. MHF S al so as se rts th es e cl ai m s su rv iv e th e rel ev an t sta tu te of

li m it at io ns

.

MHFS or ig in al ly p le d t welv e co un ts of to rti ou s in te rfer en ce an d co ns pi racy 3

to to rti ou sl y in te rfer e. MHFS ap pe al s th e di sm is sa l of f ou r cl ai m s: co un ts 4– 5 an d

12 –1 3, ab an do ni ng co un ts 2– 3 a nd 6– 11

.

-6

-The fact th at a cl ai m is di sm is se d su a sp on te an d wit ho ut no ti ce do es no t affe ct

ou r st an da rd rev ie w. Sm it h v. Bo y d, 94 5 F.2 d 10 41

, 10 43 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ). W hi le we

ha ve em ph as iz ed th at “ di st ric t co ur ts sh ou ld pr ov id e pr e-d is m is sa l no ti ce,” we ha ve
he ld th at su a sp on te di sm is sa l, wit ho ut no ti ce, do es no t m an da te rev ers al

. Id

. Thu s,

as wit h a ll ot he r di sm is sa ls

, we rev ie w th e co m pl ai nt de no vo to de te rm in e whe th er

it st at es a cl ai m . Id.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in di sm is si ng MHFS’s cl ai m s. Fi rs t

, M H FS’s

co m pl ai nt fai ls to st at e a br each of co nt ract cl ai m reco gn iz ed by Ark an sa s la w. In it s

c o mp l ai nt

, MHFS cl ai m s th at “ Bax te r Co un ty an d The Co m m is si on br each ed [it s

ag reem en ts wit h MHFS] by br each in g th ei r ob li ga ti on to pe rfo rm th os e ag reem en ts

in go od fai th .” MHFS th en pr ov id es a li st of th e wa ys t h e C o u n ty an d th e

Co m m is si on act ed in ba d fai th

. The se al le ga ti on s are in su ffi ci en t to st at e a cl ai m fo r
br each of co nt ract un de r Ark an sa s la w. The Su pr em e Co ur t of Ark an sa s ha s cl ari fie d

th at Ark an sa s con tra ct la w do es no t re co gn iz e a “ se pa rat e co nt ract cl ai m fo r br each

of a du ty of go od fai th an d fair de al in g.” Arka ns as Res earc h M ed . Test in g, LLC v

. Osb or ne , 20 11 Ark

. 15 8, *6 (Ark

. 20 11 ). “ [A] b r each of th e im pl ie d co ve na nt of 4

go od fai th an d fai r de al in g rem ai ns no th in g m or e th an ev id en ce of a po ss ib le br each

of a co nt ract be twee n pa rti es .” Id

. Bec au se MHFS do es no t al le ge a n y b r e a c h o f

co nt ract di st in ct fro m th e br each of th e du ty t o act in go od fai th , i ts c l ai m fai ls as a

m at te r of law.

Si m il arl y , MHFS fai le d to pl ead a vi ab le to rt cl ai m

. The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y

no te d th at Ark an sa s do es no t reco gn iz e a “ co nt in ui ng to rt” th eo ry , an d th eref or e, fo r

a to rt to be act io n a bl e, it m us t ha ve oc cu rred wit hi n th ree y ears of th e co m pl ai nt

. See, e.g ., Qua li ty Opt ic al of Jo ne sb or o, In c. v. Trus ty Opt ic al

, LLC, 22 5 S.W .3d 36 9,

W hi le th is op in io n was no t pu bl is he d in th e So ut h W es te rn Rep or te r, it is st il l 4

pr eced en ti al un de r Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t Ru le 5-2

.

-7

-37 2 (Ark

. 20 06 ). Alm os t al l of th e ev en ts di sc us se d in th e co m pl ai nt ha pp en ed well

ou ts id e th e ap pl ic ab le th ree- y ear p eri od

.

Of th e rem ai ni ng al le ga ti on s th at do fal l wit hi n th e rel ev an t th ree- y ear pe rio d,

MHFS fai ls to sp eci fy ho w an y de fen da nt ’s act io ns were im pr op er as a m at te r of la w.

To st at e a cl ai m fo r to rti ou s in te rfer en ce wit h a bu si ne ss ex pe ct an cy , a pl ai nt iff m us t

fir st sh ow fo ur el em en ts : (1 ) a va li d bu s i n es s rel at io ns hi p or ex pe ct an cy ; (2 ) th e

i nt erfe rin g pa rty ha s kn owl ed ge of th e rel at io ns hi p; (3 ) in te nt io na l in te rfer e n c e

in du ced a br each of th e rel at io ns hi p; an d (4 ) as a res ul t, th e pl ai nt iff su ffer ed da m ag e.

St ewart Tit le Gua r. Co

. v. Am

. Abs tra ct & Ti tl e Co

., 21 5 S.W .3d 59 6, 60 1 (Ark

. 20 05 ). If th e fir st fo ur fact or s are m et

, th en th e pl ai nt iff m us t al so sh ow th at th e

in te rfer en ce was im

pr op er. Id

. To de te rm in e if an act io n is im pr op er, co ur ts co ns id er

th e fo ll owi ng fact or s:

(1 ) th e na tu re o f th e act or ’s co nd uc t; (2 ) th e act or ’s m ot iv e; (3 ) th e in te res ts of th e ot he r wit h whi ch th e act or ’s c on du ct i nt erfe res ; (4 ) th e in te res ts so ug ht to be ad va nc ed by th e act or ; ( 5) th e so ci al in te res ts in

pr ot ect in g th e free do m of act io n of th e act or an d th e co nt ract ua l in te res ts of th e o t h e r ; (6 ) th e pr ox im it y or rem ot en es s of th e act or ’s co nd uc t to th e in te rfer en ce; an d (7 ) th e rel at io ns be twee n t he pa rti es

.

Id

. at 60 7. MHFS fai ls to al le ge su ffi ci en t fact s to su gg es t th at an y of th e de fen da nt s

im pr op erl y in te rfer ed wit h it s b us in es s. The cl os es t MHFS co m es to st at in g a to rt

cl ai m is whe n it al le ge s th at Tay lo r Sco tt an d ot he rs in te nt io na ll y in te rfer ed wit h it s
bu si ne ss ex pe ct an cy by “ cau s[ in g] po st card s to be m ai le d to al l of MHFS’s cu st om ers

of feri ng to se ll th em fu el at a lo wer pr ic e.” Cri ti cal ly, MHFS fai ls to al le ge th at th is

m ai li ng was im

pr op er in so m e way , fo r ex am pl e th at th e cu st om er lis ts were sto le n.
Thu s, ev en if we were to as su m e th at su ch act s were in te nt io na l, MHFS fai ls to st at e
a cl ai m for to rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce.

-8

-The di st ric t co ur t al so co rr ec tly dis m is se d MHFS’s ci vi l rig ht s cl ai m s fo r de ni al

of pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s br ou gh t un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d A.C.A. § 16 -1 23 -1 05

. MHFS al le ge s th at th e act io ns of th e Co un ty, th e Co m m is si on , an d rel at ed p ub li c

of fic ia ls de pr iv ed it of it s pr op ert y an d li be rty wit ho ut du e pr oc es s of la w. “ Sect io n

19 83 pr ov id es a ci vi l act io n ag ai ns t pe rs on s who

, un de r co lo r of la w, cau se a ‘dep riv at io n of an y rig ht s, pr iv il eg es , or im m un it ie s se cu red by th e Co ns ti tu ti on an d

la ws.’” Han no n v. San ne r, 44 1 F.3 d 63 5, 63 6– 37 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng 42 U.S.C.
§ 19 83 ). Sect io n 19 83 do es no t su pp ly it s own s t a t u t e of li m it at io ns ; in st ead

, we
bo rro w t he st at ut e of li m it at io ns fro m st at e la w. Bi r mi n g ha m v. Om ah a Sch . Di st

., 2 2 0 F

. 3 d 8 50

, 85 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (ci ti ng W il so n v. Garci a, 47 1 U.S. 26 1, 27 9
(1 98 5) ). In § 19 83 cas es ari si ng in Ark an sa s, the ap pl ic ab le st at ut e of li m it at io ns is

th ree years. Id . at 8 56

.

MHFS al so as se rts an al og ou s st at e la w cl ai m s un de r th e Ark an sa s ci vi l rig ht s

st at ut e, A.C.A. § 16 -1 23 -1 05

, whi ch is co ns tru ed to be co ns is te nt wit h § 198 3. See

ge ne ral ly Gen try v. Ro bi ns on , 36 1 S.W .3d 78 8 (Ark

. 20 09 ) (lo ok in g to fed eral cas es

c o n s t r u in g 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 whe n de ci di ng whe th er a vi ol at io n of A.C.A.
§ 16 -1 23 -1 05 ha s oc cu rred ); Med

. Liab

. Mu t. In s. Co

. v. Alan Cu rti s LLC, 51 9 F.3 d

46 6, 47 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). A.C.A. § 16 -1 23

- 1 0 5 do es no t pr ov id e it s own st at ut e of

li m it at io ns

. Howev er, th is co ur t ha s pr ev io us ly pr ed ic te d th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t of

Ark an sa s wou ld lo ok to fed eral cas es in te rp ret in g § 198 3 a nd li ke ly ad op t th e sa m e

th ree- y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns fo r ot he r si m il ar Ark an sa s ci vi l rig ht s act io ns

. Med

. Liab ., 51 9 F.3d at 47 4 (rea so ni ng by an al og y to A.C.A. § 1 6- 12 3- 10 5) . Giv en th at

A.C.A. § 16 -1 23 -1 05 is in te rp ret ed wit h refe ren ce to § 19 83 c a s e s , w e be li ev e th e

Su pr em e Co ur t o f Ark an sa s wou ld li ke ly ap pl y th e sa m e th ree- y ear st at ut e of

li m it at io ns

. Cf. id

. at 47 4– 75

. The r e f o r e , un de r bo th § 19 83 an d A.C.A.
§ 1 6- 12 3- 10 5, t he ap pl ic ab le st at ut e o f li m it at io ns is th ree years.

Lik e th e di st ric t co ur t, we ha ve di ffi cu lt y as cert ai ni ng an y pr op ert y or li be rty

in te res t of whi ch MHFS ha s be en de pr i v e d

, o r a n y pr oc es s it ha s be en de ni ed

,

-9

-pa rti cu la rly in li gh t of th e di sm is sa l of th e br each of co nt ract an d to rti ou s in te rfer en ce

cl ai m s. Fu rth erm or e, w e n o t e t h at al m os t al l of th e fact s al le ge d to su pp or t th e

pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m s oc cu rred ou ts id e th e th ree- y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. The on ly fact ua l al le ga ti on wit hi n th e rel ev an t pe rio d is th at th e Co m m is si on en te red

a le as e wit h de fen da nt Fl y Ark an sa s an d th at le as e di d no t co nf or m to th e “ Mi ni m

um

St an da rd s.” W ha t MHFS fai ls to art ic ul at e, ho wev er, is ho w th e Co mm i s s i o n ’s

de ci si on no t to im

po se th e “ Mi ni m

um St an da rd s” on Fl y Ark an sa s, an ot he r pa r t y,

cau se d MHFS to su ffer a pr op ert y or li be rty dep riv at io n o r ho w th is act io n vi ol at ed

MHFS’s pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s rig ht s. Acco rd in gl y , we a f fir m th e di st ric t co ur t’s

di sm is sa l o f th e d ue pro ces s cl ai m s.

F i n a l ly, th e di st ric t co ur t was wit hi n it s di sc ret io n to de cl in e to ex erci s e

su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er th e two rem ai ni ng st at e la w cl ai m s an d di sm is s th os e
cl ai m s wi th ou t p reju di ce. Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 67 (c), a di st ric t co ur t “ m ay de cl in e

to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er a cl ai m un de r su bs ect io n (a) if

. . . (3 ) th e
di s tri ct co ur t ha s di sm is se d al l cl ai m s ov er whi ch it ha s or ig in al juri sd ic ti on

. . . .”

The di st ric t co ur t ha d or ig in al juri sd ic ti on ov er th e § 19 83 cl ai m s. Afte r th e § 19 83

cl ai m s were di sm is se d, th e di st ric t co ur t act ed wit h i n i ts di sc ret io n in de cl in in g to

ex erci se su pp le m en ta l ju ris di ct io n o ve r th e rem ai ni ng st at e la w cla im s.

B. Mot io n to Alte r J udg m ent a nd Amend the Co m pl ai nt

W hi le MHFS’s m ot io n was st y le d as a m ot io n to al te r jud gm en t un de r Fed eral

R u l e of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 59

, th is m ot io n was es se nt ia ll y a po st -d is m is sa l m ot io n t o

am en d th e co m

pl ai nt

. W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d fo r ab us e

5

of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es ex rel

. Ro op v. Hy po gu ard USA, In c., 55 9 F.3 d 81 8, 82 9

Th e o n l y g r ou nd ci te d by MHFS fo r se tt in g as id e th e pr io r or de r was th at 5

MHFS ha d no t y et am en de d it s co m pl ai nt an d th at MHFS co ul d cu re an y de fic ie nc ie s wit h t he pro po se d a m en dm en t.

-1 0-(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). A m ot io n fo r le av e t o a men d aft er di sm is sa l is su bjec t to di ffer en t

co ns id erat io ns th an a m ot io n pr io r to di sm is sa l. Dor n v. St at e Ban k o f S t e l l a , 7 6 7

F.2 d 44 2, 44 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ). W hi le “ a pa rty m ay st il l f i l e a mo t i o n fo r le av e to

am en d an d am en dm en ts sh o u l d b e gr an te d li be ral ly, su ch a m ot io n wou ld be

in ap pr op ria te ‘if th e [d is tri ct ] co ur t ha s cl earl y in di cat ed ei th er th at no am en dm en t is

po ss ib le or th at di sm is sa l of th e co m pl ai nt al so co ns ti tu te s di sm is sa l of th e act io n.’”

Id

. (q uo ti ng Cze rem ch a v. In t’l Ass ’n of Mac hi ni st s & Aero sp ace W or ke rs , 72 4 F.2 d

15 52 , 15 56 n.6 (11 th Cir . 19 84 )).

“ Thi s di st in ct io n—

be twee n a di sm is sa l o f a co m pl ai nt an d a di sm is sa l of an

en ti re act io n— de pe nd s on whe th er th e co ur t in te nd ed th e di smi s s al to be a fin al

,
ap pe al ab le or de r.” Geie r v. Mi ss ou ri Eth ic s Co m m ’n, 71 5 F.3 d 67 4, 67 7 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 13 ) (ci ti ng Cze rem ch a, 72 4 F.2 d at 15 55 –5 6)

. “ [D]ism is si ng a co m pl ai nt

co ns ti tu te s di sm is sa l of th e act io n whe n it st at es or cl e a r l y i n di cat es th at no

am en dm en t is po ss ib le —e.g ., whe n th e co m pl ai nt is di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e

. . . .”

Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ If, ho wev er, th e ‘ord er do es no t ex pr es sl y o r by cl ear

im pl ic at io n di sm is s th e act io n,’ un de r Cze rem ch a, th e or de r on ly di s mi s s ed th e

co m pl ai nt

, an d th us th e pa rty m ay am en d un de r Ru le 15 (a) w i t h th e co ur t’s

pe rm is si on .” Id

. (q uo ti ng W hi ta ke r v. Ci ty of Hou st on , Tex

., 96 3 F.2 d 83 1, 83 5 (5 th

Ci r. 19 92 )).

W e be li ev e th e di st ric t co ur t i nt en de d t o d is m is s t he en ti re ac ti on . The co ur t

di sm is se d th e fir st se ve nt een co un ts of MHFS’s co m pl ai nt wit h pr ejud ic e, in cl ud in g

th e § 19 83 cl ai m s. W it h th e fed eral qu es ti on s di sm is se d, t h e d i s t r ic t co ur t th en
de cl ine d to exerci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er th e rem ai ni ng st at e la w cl ai m s an d

di sm is se d th es e fin al two cl ai m s wit ho ut pr ejud ic e. See 28 U.S.C. § 13 67 (c). W hi le

no t al l th e cl ai m s were di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e, gi ve n th e ju r i s d ic ti on al

ci rcu m st an ces , we be li ev e th e reco rd su pp or ts th e co nc lu si on th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s

in te nt was to di sm is s th e en ti re act io n, ren de rin g th e di sm is sa l a fin al

, ap pe al ab le

-1 1-or de r. Thu s, we fin d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t a b u se it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g th e

m ot io n t o a m en d fo ll owi ng it s d is m is sa l o f th e act io n.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e rea so ns st at ed ab ov e, we affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-1 2-