FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 9, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 54 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 9- cv -8 04 80 -DTKH JONATHAN E. PERLMAN, ESQ., as co urt ap po in te d R ecei ve r of Crea ti ve Cap it al Co ns orti um , LLC, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us DOROTHY DE LISFORT-THEODULE, anin di vi du al , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t, W EALTH BUILDERS CIR CLE, LLC., a Geo rg iali m it edli ab il it y co m pa ny, et al ., Defen da nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 9, 2 01 2)Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Dor ot hy Delis fo rt- The odul e, pr oc eed in g p ro se, app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t ag ai ns t h er i n an a ct io n t o re co ve r fu nd s fr au du le nt ly tran sf erre d t o h er. Sh e co nt en ds th e co urt l ack edpe rs on al juri sd ic ti onov er h er an d tha t t he co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enitde ni edhe r m ot io ns to tra ns fer v enue an d fo r a co nt in ua nc e. I. The Secu rit ie s an d Ex ch an ge Co m m is si on bro ug htanact io n a ga in st Deli sf ort-Th eo du le ’s hu sb an d fo r vi ol at in g fe de ral sec ur it ie s l aws , all eg in g h e en ga ge d i n aPo nz i s ch em e. The d is tri ctco urt ap po in te d aRece iv er an d o rd ered hi m to tak e act io n t o p ro te ctth e in ve st or s an d t o re cl ai m frau du le nt ly tran sf

erre d fu nd s. Th e Rec ei ve r fi le d t hi s ac ti on in Marc h 2 00 9 t o re co ve r th e fu nd s frau du le nt ly tran sf

erre d t o Del is fo rt- The odul e b y he r hu sb an d, n am in g h er as a pa rti ci pa ntin th e Po nz i s ch em e an d n ot in g t wo t ran sf ers to be setasi de . The di stric t co urt ex te nd edDeli sf ort-Th eo du le ’s ti m e to an swe r th e co m pl ai ntun ti l Au gu st20 09 , bu t t he de ad li ne pa ss edwit ho uta res po ns e. The co urt s ch edul edtri al forApri l 2 01 0. In Feb ru ary 20 10 , sh e fi na ll y fil edhe r an swe r to th e co m

pl ai nt , whi chrai se d n o a ffi rm at iv e d efen se s. Tri al was re se t fo r 2th e Ma rch 25 , 20 10 cal en da r cal l.

InMarc h, ro ug hl y

on e y ear a fte r th e act io n was fil ed , Deli sf ort-Th eo du le fil eda m ot io n fo r ch an ge of v en ue , arg ui ng th atGeor gi a—h er s ta te of res id en ce—was th e p ro pe r ve nu e b ecau se pro ceed in g i n F lo rid a wou ldbe in co nv en ie ntbo th forhe r an d fo r he r wit ne ss es , andbe cau se sh e co ul d n otaffo rd to de fen d h ers el f inFlo rid a. The R ecei ve r ob jecte d, ar gu in g tha t b ecau se Deli sf ort-Th eo du le ha d wai te d s o l on g t o fi le , gra nt in g the m ot io n wo ul d n ot pr om ot e jud ic ia l ec on omy an d h e wou ldbe pre

jud ic ed . Furt he r, th e Rec ei ve r arg ue d t ha t Del is fo rt- The odul e wou ldon ly hav e to m ak e o ne m or e tr ip to Flo rid a an d t ha t s he ha d n otex pl ai ne d wh y itwou ldbe les s ex pe ns iv e to ret ai n c ou ns el in Geo rg ia . The co urt ag reedwit h t he Rece iv er, n ot edth atth e tr an sf er wo ul d d el ay tri al an d i m

pe de effo rts to reco ve r frau du le nt ly tran sf erre d fu nd s, an d d en ie d Deli sf ort-Th eo du le ’s m ot io n. InApri l 2 01 0, t he Rece iv er m ov edto co nt in ue th e tr ia l b ecau se th e p art ie s were d is cu ss in g s et tl em en t, an d the co urt g ran te d t ha t m ot io n. Tri al was s etfor Octo be r 25 , 20 10 . On Oct ob er 1 , 20 10 All enAlb erg a, a Geo rg iaatt orne y , fil eda m ot io n t o app ear p ro ha c v ic e o n Del is fo rt- The odul e’s be ha lf, wh ic h t he co urt gr an te d o n Oct ob er 5 . On Oct ob er 2 3, t he Satur da y be fo re tria l, Al be rg a fi le d a m ot io n t o c on ti nu e th e tr ia l. He cl ai m edhe was u nabl e to att en d due to pe rs on al 3fam il y

is su es , th athe ha d fo ur

ot he r cas es forwhi ch he ha d t o app ear t he same week , andth athe ha d n otha d e no ug h t im e to co nf er wi th Deli sf

ort-Th eo du le . The Rec ei ve r op po se d a ny con ti nu an ce, arg ui ng th at , bec au se of tria l p rep arat io n a nd arra ng in g fo r witne ss es to be av ai labl e, he wou ldbe pre jud ic edby any

de la y . The di st ric t co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n t o c on ti nu e. Afte r a b en ch tri al , at wh ic h n ei th er Del is fo rt- The odul e n orhe r co un se l ap pe ared , th e co urt co nc lu de d tha t Del is fo rt- The odul e h adrece iv ed$3 ,00 0,2 00 in frau du le nttrans fers th atwere av oi dabl e u nd er Fl a. St at . § 7 26 .10 5. It en te red 1 jud gm en t ag ai ns t h er i n tha t am ou nt . This is he r ap pe al . II.

“ [T]he is su e o f whe th er p ers on al juri sd ic ti on is pre se ntis a qu es ti on of l aw an d s ub ject t o d e n ov o re vi ew.” Dia m on d C ry st al Bran ds , Inc . v. Fo odMo ve rs In t’l, In c., 59 3 F .3d12 49 , 12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). “ [L]ack o f pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on is a waiv ab le de fect , and. . . a d efen da ntwaiv es an y ob jecti on to th e d is tri ct co urt’s jur is di ct io n o ve r [h er] pers on by notob jecti ng to itin a res po ns iv e pl ead in g o r a Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 m ot io n.” Pal m er v . Brau n, 3 76 F.3d12 54 , 12 59 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) ; s ee al so Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(2 ), (h ). “ A party tha t fa il s t o ra is e The Rec eiver

filed a motion for summar y judgme nt as to all of the re levant tra nsfer s, 1 which the district cour

t gr anted in par

t in the amount of $545,200. The $3,000,200 total includes that amount. 4a d efen se of l ackof p ers on al juri sd ic ti on at t he ap pr op ria te ti m e is de em edto ha ve

co nf erre d p ers on al juri sd ic ti on on th e co urt b y co ns en t.” Pa rd azi v. Cu ll m anMed . Ctr., 89 6 F .2d13 13 , 13 17 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Becaus e Del is fo rt- The odul e d idno t ob ject t o t he co urt’s p ers on al juri sd ic ti on ov er h er i n am ot io n t o d is m is s o r in he r an swe r, sh e h as waiv edth ataffi rm at iv e d efen se . III. W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o ch an ge ve nu e. See Pa lm er, 3 76 F.3dat 1 25 7. A d is tri ctco urt m ay tra ns fer aciv il act io n t o a ny oth er d is tri ctor d iv is io n wh ere i t m ay ha ve be enbro ug ht“ [f]or t he co nv en ie nc e o f th e p art ie s an d wi tn es se s, an d i n t he in te res t o f jus ti ce.” Ro bi ns on v. Gi arm arco & Bi ll , P.C., 74 F.3d25 3, 2 60 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (ci ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 1 40 4( a)). Ho wev er “ [t]he pl ai nt iff’s cho ic e o f fo ru m sh ou ldno t b e d is tu rb ed un le ss itis cle arl y

ou twei gh edby oth er co ns id erat io ns .” Id . It i s t he m ov an t’s bu rd ento pe rs ua de th e co urt t ha t a t ran sf er s ho ul d b e g ran te d. Se e In re Ri co h Co rp ., 87 0 F .2d57 0, 5 73 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ); Ti m e, In c. v. M an ni ng , 36 6 F .2d69 0, 69 8 (5 th Cir . 19 66 ) . 2 The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t b ecau se Deli sf ort-Th eo du le ha d wai te d ro ug hl y In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 2 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down be fore October 1, 1981. 5on e y ear t o re qu es t ch an ge of v en ue , tra ns feri ng th e cas e wou ldha ve res ul te d i n

un ne ces sary

de la y an d m ig htha ve pre

jud ic edth e Rec ei ve r’s ab il it y to reco ve r an d av oi d fr au du le nttra ns fers . It al so co nc lu de d tha t Del is fo rt- The odul e h adno t carr ie d h er b ur de n t o s ho w ho w tra ns ferr in g t he ve nu e wou ldha ve reduc edhe r co st s. No r di d s he id en ti fy an y wit ne ss es who co ul d n otor wo ul d n ottes ti fy un le ss th e cas e was tra ns ferr ed . On th es e g ro un ds , th e co urt t he refo re co nc lu de d th atan y ad di ti on al co st s o r in co nv en ie nc e to Deli sf ort-Th eo du le was i ns uf

fic ie nt to di stur b t he Rece iv er’s fo ru m

ch oi ce. We see n o abu se of d is cret io n i n t ha t de ci si on . IV. W e al so rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n to co nt in ue , rev ers in g o nl y if t he de ni al was a rb it rary or u nr eas on ab le . See 3 Ro m ero v. Dru m

m on d C o., In c., 55 2 F .3d13 03 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); Qu ie t Tech . DC-8 , Inc . v. Hu rel -Dubo is UK Ltd., 3 26 F.3d13 33 , 13 50 –5 1 (1 1t h C ir. 20 03 ). To d et erm in e whe th er t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n we c on si de r in pa rt: (1) “ th e ex te ntof [ Deli sf ort-Th eo du le ’s] di li ge nc e in he r effo rts to ready he r de fen se pri orto th e d at e se t fo r” t ria l; (2) “ th e ex te ntto whi ch gra nt in g t he Although D elisfort-The odule did not clear ly articulate this argument in her brie f to this 3 Court, we construe pro se br iefs libera lly . See Ha rris v. United Auto. Ins. Grp. Inc., 579 F .3d 1227, 1231 (11th Cir. 2009). 6co nt in ua nc e wou ldha ve in co nv en ie nc edth e co urt an d t he [Rec ei ve r], in cl ud in g i ts

wit ne ss es ”; an d (3 ) “ th e ex te ntto whi ch [Del is fo rt- The odul e] m ig htha ve su ffer ed ha rm as ares ul t o f th e d is tri ctco urts s d en ia l.” Se e Qui etTech ., 32 6 F .3dat 1 35 1 (al te rat io ns om it te d) . The di stric t co urt d en ie d Del is fo rt- The odul e’s m ot io n fo r a co nt in ua nc e, whi chwas “ fil edjus t two d ay s b efo re t ria l was sch edul edto co m m en ce an d a fte r [th e Rec ei ve r] spe ntco ns id erab le ti m e p rep ari ng fortri al an d a rran gi ng forou t-o fst at e wit ne ss es to be pre se ntfortri al .” Becaus e o f th e m ot io n’s “ el ev en th -h ou r na tu re,” t ha t d eci si on was n otanab us e o f di sc ret io n. AFFIRMED.

7