FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 5, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nos . 11 -1 55 54 , 11 -1 56 51 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -0 07 00 -RGV HNAN AL HALLAQ, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us RADHA SOAMI TRADING, LLC, d.b .a. Sev enOaks Acad em y , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 5 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Hna n Al ha ll aq , a fem al e Mu sl im pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di stric t co urt’s o rd er d is m is si ng he r cl ai m s, i n alaws ui t fo r ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t ba se d o n re li gi ou s h aras sm en t, i n v io la ti on of Ti tl e VII o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 (Tit le VII), 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (a)( 1) , con sp ira cy to vi ol at e h er ci vi l ri gh ts , in vi ol at io n o f 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 5( 2) , andne gl ig en t h iri ng , ret en ti on , supe rv is io n, an d fa il ur e to tra in , invi ol at io n o f Geo rg iast at e la w, as wel l as th e co urt’s d en ia l of he r m ot io n t o a m en d h er co m pl ai nt , pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 15 (a)( 2) . Alh al la q ra is es sev eral is su es on ap pe al , whi chwe ad dr es s i n turn. Aft er rev ie w, we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt. I. Alh al la q c on te nd s h er h os ti le worken vi ro nm en t cl ai m di d n otwarran t di sm is sa l b ecau se th e rel ig io us ha ras sm en t was su ffi ci en tl y sev ere a ndpe rv as iv e to est ab li sh a Tit le VII vi ol at io n. W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f a m ot io n t o d is m is s a co m pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 12 (b )(6 ), acce pt in g t he all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai ntas tru e an d c on st ru in g t he m in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff. Ti mso n v . Sa mps on , 51 8 F .3d87 0, 8 72 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . A com

pl ai ntm ay

be di sm is se d fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m if i t do es no t p le ad“ en ou gh fact s t o s ta te a cl ai m to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face .” 2Bell

Atl . Cor p. v. Tw omb ly , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 57 0 (2 00 7) . “ A cla im ha s fa ci al pl au si bi li ty whe n t he pl ai nt iff pl ead s fa ctua l co nt en t tha t al lo ws the co urt t o draw th e rea so nabl e in fere nc e th atth e d efen da ntis li ab le forth e m is co nduc t al le ge d.” Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l , 55 6 U.S. 6 62 , 67 8 (2 00 9) . “ Factua l al le ga ti on s m us t b e en ou gh to rai se a ri gh t t o re li ef ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve lev el .” Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at55 5.

“ A ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t cl ai m un de r Tit le VII is est ab li sh edup on pr oo f th atth e workp la ce i s p erm eat edwith d is cri m in at ory in ti mid at io n, ri di cu le , an d i ns ul t, tha t i s s uf

fic ie nt ly sev ere o r pe rv as iv e to alt er the co nd it io ns of t he vi ct im ’s em

pl oym en t an d c reat e anab us iv e worki ng en vi ro nm en t.” Mil le r v. Ken wo rth o

f Do th an , Inc . , 27 7 F .3d12 69 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . To es tabl is h aho st il e work e nv iro nm en t cl ai m , a pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w th at : (1 ) sh e b el on gs to a pr ot ect edgro up ; (2 ) sh e h as be ensubjec t t o u nwe lc om e ha ras sm en t; (3) th e h aras sm en t was ba se d o n apro te ct edch arac te ris ti c; (4) th e ha ras sm en t was su ffi ci en tl y sev ere o r pe rv as iv e to alt er the term s an d c on di ti on s of em pl oym en t an d c reat e a d is cri m in at or il y ab us iv e worki ng en vi ro nm en t; an d (5 ) th e em

pl oyer is res po ns ib le forsu chen vi ro nm en t und er a the ory of e it he r vi cari ou s o r di rectli ab il ity . Id. The “ se ve re o r pe rv as iv e” re qu ire m en t co nt ai ns bo th anob jecti ve an d a subjec ti ve co m

po ne nt . Id

. at 1 27 6. Th us , th e h aras si ng “be ha vi orm us t re su ltin 3bo th anen vi ro nm en t tha t a r eas on ab le pe rs on wou ldfin d h os ti le or abu si ve an d a n

en vi ro nm en t tha t the vi ct im subjec ti ve ly perce iv es to be ab us iv e.” Id. (quo ta ti on s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . Inev al ua ti ng th e h aras sm en t’s o bjec ti ve sev eri ty, fact or s to co ns id er i nc lu de : “ (1 ) th e fre qu en cy of t he co nduc t; (2) th e se ve rit y of t he co nduc t; (3) whet he r th e co nduc t i s p hysic al ly thre at en in g o r hu mil ia ti ng , or a m ere o ffen si ve ut te ran ce; an d (4 ) whe th er the co nduc t u nr eas on ab ly int erfe res with t he em

pl oyee’s job pe rfo rm an ce.” Id. Tit le VII is no t a “ ge ne ral civ il it y co de ” an d d oe s n otm ak e act io nabl e or di na ry workpl ace t rib ul at io ns . Co tt on v. Cr ac ker Barre l Old C

ou ntrySt or e, In c. , 43 4 F .3d12 27 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Thu s, Ti tl e VII i s n otim pl ic at ed

“ whe re the re i s the ‘ m ere u tt eran ce o f anep it he t.’” Mil le r , 27 7 F .3dat 1 27 6- 77 (al te rat io n o m it te d) . W e p ro ceedwith “ co m m on sen se , andanap pr op ria te se ns it iv it y

to so ci al co nt ex t, t o d is ti ng ui sh be twee n g en eral off ic e vul ga rit y

an d th e co nduc t wh ic h areas on ab le pe rs on inth e p la in ti ff’s p os it io n wo ul d fi nd se ve rel y ho st il e o r ab us iv e.” Reeves v. C.H. Rob in so n Wor ld wi de, Inc . , 59 4 F .3d 79 8, 8 11 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . “ The sp eak er’s m ean in g m ay de pe ndon va rio us fact or s i nc lu di ng co nt ex t, i nf le ct io n, t on e o f vo ic e, lo cal cu st om , andhi st or ic al us ag e.” Ash v. Tys on Foo ds , Inc . , 54 6 U.S. 4 54 , 45 6 (2 00 6) . In ad di ti on , “ [p ]erso na l an im os it y is no t the equi va le nt ” o f th e type o f 4ha ras sm en t p ro hi bi te d b y Tit le VII, an d t he pl ai nt iff can no t turn a“pe rs on al feu d” in to su cha Tit le VII cl ai m . McCo ll um v. Bo lg er , 79 4 F .2d60 2, 6 10 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng Alh al la q’s Ti tl e VII h os ti le work en vi ro nm en t cl ai m

ba se d o n re li gi ou s h aras sm en t. Fi rs t, Al ha ll aqha s n ot pl au si bl y all eg ed th atth e h aras sm en t, n am el y , th e rem ark s tha t s he was “ di rty”

1 an d fo r he r “ to go to Hell ” an d “ bu rninHell ,” an d t he pl ay in g o f Ch ris ti ango sp el m us ic , was d on e o n a cco un t o f he r Mu sl im rel ig io n. Se co nd , Alh al la q h as no t es tabl is he d t he ha ras sm en t was su ffi ci en tl y sev ere o r pe rv as iv e to alt er the term s an d c on di ti on s o f he r em

pl oym en t. The off

en si ve co nduc t, al be itrud e an d in se ns it iv e, is no t ac ti on ab le un de r Tit le VII, as itam ou nt edto m ere o ffen si ve ut te ran ces or g en eral vu lg ari ty tha t Ti tl e VII d oe s n otreg ul at e. Mo reo ve r, Tit le VII is no t a “ ge ne ral civ il it y co de ” an d Al ha ll aqcan no t m ak e act io nabl e o rd in ary workp la ce trib ul at io ns by turn in g a“pe rs on al feu d” be twee n h ers el f an d aco worke r in to a Tit le VII rel ig io us ly hos ti le worken vi ro nm en t cl ai m .

We liberally construe pro se pleading s. Boxe r X v. Harris , 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 1 2006). Howeve r, the leniency aff orded pro se litigants does not g ive the cour ts license to serve as de facto co u n s el or permit them to rewrite an otherwise defic ient pleading in order to sustain an action. GJR Inv., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla. , 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds as recognized in Randall v. Scott , 610 F.3d 701, 709 ( 11th Cir. 2010). 5II.

Alh al la q a ss ert s the di st ric t co urt erredindi sm is si ng he r ci vi l co ns pi racy cl ai m . She ass ert s the de fen da nt s co ns pi redto withh ol d i nf orm at io n, t o m anuf actur e ev id en ce, an d t o d ep riv e h er o f pr op erty ina st at e co urt p ro ceed in g, in vi ol at io n o f he r ci vi l ri gh ts , form in g t he ba si s fo r a ci vi l co ns pi racy. Inco ns pi racy case s, a d efen da ntm us t b e in fo rm edof t he na tu re o f th e al le ge d c on sp ira cy

an d “ [i]t i s n oten ou gh to si m pl y av er i n t he co m

pl ai ntth ata co ns pi racy exi st ed .” Ful lma n v . Gra ddic k, 73 9 F .2d55 3, 5 57 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). Thu s, co nc lu so ry , vag ue , andge ne ral all eg at io ns of c on sp ira cy m ay jus ti fy di sm is sa l o f a co m

pl ai nt . Id. To es tabl is h aco ns pi racy clai m un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 5( 2) , a pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow a c on sp ira cy

“ to de te r, by force , in ti m id at io n, o r th reat , any part y or wi tn es s in an y co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s fr om att en di ng su chco urt, o r fro m tes ti fy in g t o an y m at te r pe nd in g t he rei n, fr eel y , ful ly, an d t ru th fu ll y , or t o i nju re s uc h p arty or witne ss inhi s p ers on or p ro pe rty onacco un t o f hi s h av in g s o a tt en de d o r

6te st ifi ed .” 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 5( 2) . In a dd it io n, the pl ai nt iff m us t h av e su ffer edan 2 actua l i nju ry . Mor as t v. La nc e , 80 7 F .2d92 6, 9 30 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). A pl ai nt iff

see ki ng to reco ve r un de r § 1 98 5( 2) forob st ru ct io n o f th e co ur se of jus ti ce i n the fed eral jus ti ce s y st em m us t s ho w a ne xu s b etweenth e al le ge d co ns pi racy anda fed eral co urt p ro ceed in g. Bra dt , 63 4 F .2dat 8 00 -0 1; se e a ls o McAnd re w v. Lo ckh eed

Mar ti n C or p. , 20 6 F .3d10 31 , 10 35 n.2 (11 thCir . 20 00 ) (enba nc ) (n ot in g § 19 85 (2 )’s ph ras e “ co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s” do es no t re fer t o st at e co urts ); Mor as t , 80 7 F .2dat 9 30 (co nc lu di ng th at , bec au se th e Offi ce o f th e Co m pt ro ll er o f th e Curren cy

was a n a dm in is tra ti ve ag en cy , itwas n ota fed eral co urt fo r pu rp os e o f § 1 98 5( 2) ). Alh al la q a ll eg edto th e d is tri ctco urt tha t the de fen da nt s co ns pi redag ai ns t he r du rin g p ro ceed in gs be fo re the Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Comm is si on (EEOC), an d n ow al le ge s tha t the y co ns pi redag ai ns t h er i n re la ti on to pro ceed in gs be fo re a Geo rg iast at e co urt. Bas edon eit he r of th es e al le ga ti on s, Al ha ll aq ’s civ il co ns pi racy clai m

fai ls un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 5( 2) be cau se th is sec ti on ap pl ie s o nl y to fed eral co urt p ro ceed in gs , no t t o a dm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs be fo re the EEOC

The last two cla

uses of § 1985(2) refe r t o conspirac ies designed to deny or interf ere with 2 equal protec tion rights in any State or Territory , and plaintiffs seeking to rec over under those clause s must show a rac ial or otherwise class-ba sed discriminatory animus. Bradt v . Smith , 634 F.2d 796, 801 (5th Cir. Unit A J an. 1981). The last two clauses of § 1985(2) a

re not a pplicable in this case . 7orto st at e co urt p ro ceed in gs . Mor eo ve r, Alh al la q’s al le ga ti on s ar e si m pl y to o co nc lu so ry , vag ue , andge ne ral to pre ve ntdi sm is sa l o f he r co m pl ai nt . III. Alh al la q c on te nd s the di st ric t co urt erredindi sm is si ng he r ne gl ig en t h iri ng an d re te nt io n c la im . Und er Geo rg ialaw, an “ em pl oyer is bo un d t o e xe rci se or di na ry care inth e se le ct io n o f em pl oyees a ndno t t o re ta in th em aft er kno wled ge of in co m pe te nc y .” O.C.G.A. § 34 -7 -2 0. “ [L]iab il it y forne gl ig en t h iri ng or ret en ti on requi res ev id en ce tha t the em pl oyer kn ew orsh ou ldha ve kn own of t he em pl oyee’s pro pe ns it y

to en ga ge inth e type o f co nduc t tha t caus edth e p la in ti ff’s in jury.” Mid

dl eb ro ok s v. Hi ll cr es t Fo od

s, In c. , 25 6 F .3d12 41 , 12 47 (11 thCir . 20 01 ). A neg li ge ntret en ti on cla im is pro pe rly dis m is se d wh enth ere i s n o un de rlyin g t ort upo n wh ic h t o b as e it . Se e Eckh ar dt v. Y erkes Reg’ l Pr ima te Ctr . , 56 1 S .E.2d16 4, 1 66 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 02 ); se e a ls o MARTA v. Mo sl ey , 63 4 S .E.2d 46 6, 4 69 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 06 ) (“ A cla im forne gl ig en t re te nt io n i s n eces sa ril y de riv at iv e an d c anon ly survi ve su m m ary jud gm en t t o t he ex te ntth atth e un de rlyin g s ub st an ti ve cla im s s urvi ve th e sa m e.”).

8The di stric t co urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng th e n eg li ge nthi rin g a ndret en ti on

cl ai m be cau se Alh al la q d idno t i de nt ify the un de rlyin g t ort upo n wh ic h t o b as e th e ne gl ig en ce cl ai m , whi chis ne ces sa ril y de riv at iv e. 3 IV. Alh al la q a ss ert s the di st ric t co urt erredinde nyin g h er l eav e to am en d h er fir stam en de d c om

pl ai ntbe cau se he r se co ndam en de d c om pl ai ntwou ldno t b e fu ti le an d t he re was no un du e d el ay or d il at ory

m ot iv e o n h er p art . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o a m en d aco m pl ai ntforanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Fla . Evergre en Fol ia ge v. E.I. DuPon t De Ne mou rs &Co . , 47 0 F .3d 10 36 , 10 40 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Howev er, we rev ie w th e d en ia l de no vo when th e di st ric t co urt d en ie s l eav e to am en d b as edon fut il it y be cau se itco nc lu de s tha t an am en de d c om

pl ai ntwou ldne ces sa ril y

fai l as a m at te r of

law. Id. Afte r a res po ns iv e p le ad in g h as be enfil ed , subs eque ntam en dm en ts are pe rm is si bl e o nl y

with the op po si ng pa rty’ s wri tt enco ns en t o r th e co urt’s l eav e, whi chth e co urt “ sh ou ldfree ly giv e [] whenjus ti ce s o re qu ire s.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 15 (a)( 2) . A dis tri ctco urt s ho ul d g iv e a p la in ti ff an op po rtu ni ty to am en d h er

To the extent Alhallaq asser ts she should be allowed to amend her complaint in the district 3 court to alleg e an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, she did not raise this claim in the district c ourt and we cannot addre ss it. See Bryant v. Jones , 575 F.3d 1281, 1308 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent extraordinary circ umstances, leg al theories and arg uments not raised square ly befor e the district court ca

nnot be broa ched f

or the fir st tim e on appe al.” ) .

9co m

pl ai ntrathe r th andi sm is s i t wh ena m or e car efu ll y dra fte d c om

pl ai ntm ig ht st at e a cl ai m

up onwhi chrel ie f co ul d b e g ran te d. Fri edla nder v. Nims , 75 5 F .2d 81 0, 8 13 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). A di st ric t co urt m ay de ny suc h l eav e whe re the re i s

“ subs ta nt ia l re as on ” fo r do in g s o, s uc h a s wh ere ( 1) th ere h as be enun du e d el ay , ba d fa it h, d il at ory

m ot iv e, or

rep eat edfai lure t o c ur e d efi ci en ci es by am en dm en ts pr ev io us ly allo wed ; (2 ) al lo win g a m en dm en t wo ul d c au se un du e p reju di ce t o t he op po si ng pa rty; or(3) am en dm en t wo ul d b e fu ti le . Bur ge r K in g C or p. v. Weave r , 16 9 F .3d13 10 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ).

“ [T]he d en ia l o f le av e to am en d i s ju st ifi edby futi li ty whe n t he co m pl ai ntas am en de d i s s ti ll subjec t t o d is m is sa l.” Se e id. at 1 32 0 (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . In ot he r wor ds , “ [b ]ecaus e jus ti ce d oe s n otrequi re d is tri ctco urts to wast e th ei r ti m e on ho pe le ss cas es , lea ve m ay be de ni edif apro po se d am en dm en t fa il s t o c orrect th e d efi ci en ci es inth e o rig in al co m pl ai ntor o th erwi se fai ls to st at e a cl ai m .” Miz za ro v. Home Dep ot

, Inc . , 54 4 F .3d12 30 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y de ni edAlh al la q l eav e to fil e a s eco ndam en de d co m pl ai ntbe cau se th e p ro po se d a m en dm en ts wou ldbe fut il e. Se e W ea ver , 16 9 F.3 d a t 1 31 9. Fi rs t, the pro po se d s eco ndam en de d c om pl ai nt ’s add it io n o f th e wor ds “ ho st il e” an d “ rel ig io us ” to th e fi rs t am en de d c om pl ai nt ’s cap ti on forth e Tit le VII cl ai m

—“ “ work e nv iro nm en t/ha ras sm en t” —fa il edto co rrec t the 10de fic ie nc ie s i n t he fir stam en de d c om pl ai nt , as Al ha ll aqad de d n o n ew fact s t o supp ort thi s cl ai m . In an y ev en t, the fir stam en de d c om pl ai ntm ad e cl ear t ha t s he was all eg in g aho st il e work e nv iro nm en t cl ai m ba se d o n re li gi ou s h aras sm en t. Seco nd , th e p ro po se d a m en de d c om pl ai nt ’s all eg at io n tha t Al ha ll aqwas co ns tru ct iv el y

di sc ha rg edinret al ia ti on forhe r op po si ti on to rel ig io us ha ras sm en t is m oo t b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt ru le d i n h er favo r on th e Tit le VII ret al ia ti on cl ai m an d s he acce pt edth e d efen da nt s’ set tl em en t o fferas t o thi s cl ai m . Thi rd , th e p ro po se d am en de d c om pl ai nt ’s new caus e o f act io n fo r co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e fai ls to pl eada pl au si bl e cl ai m , parti cu la rly giv enth atth e pr op os edco m

pl ai ntdo es no t i nd ic at e whe th er the cla im is be in g b ro ug htpu rs ua nt to st at e o r fed eral law. To th e ex te ntth atAlh al la q ra is edth e co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e cl ai m

un de r Tit le VII, th e cl ai m wou ldfai l b ecau se Alh al la q wo ul d n ot be ab le to pro ve th athe r worki ng co nd it io ns were s o “ in to le rab le ” th ata

“ reas on ab le pe rs on ” inhe r po si ti on wou ldha ve fel t “ co m pe ll edto res ig n.” Se e Brya nt v. Ja mes , 57 5 F .3d12 81 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Ind eed , “ [e]st ab li sh in g a co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e cl ai m is a m or e o ne ro us tas k t ha n e st ab li sh in g aho st il e work e nv iro nm en t cl ai m ,” an d, as di sc us se d abo ve , her ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t cl ai m was p ro pe rly dis m is se d. Id. To th e ex te ntAlh al la q b ro ug htth e cl ai m pu rs ua ntto Geor gi a st at e la w, itli ke ly w ou ldfai l b ecau se Geor gi a d oe s n otpe rm it 11anat- wil l em pl oyee to m ai nt ai n a n a ct io n a ga in sthe r em pl oyer forco ns tru ct iv e wro ng fu l t erm in at io n. Se e Jel li co v. Eff in gh am Cn ty . , 47 1 S .E.2d36 , 37 -3 8 (Ga . Ct . App . 19 96 ). In a ny even t, d es pi te Ru le 15 (a)’s l ib eral am en dm en t p ol ic y , Alh al la q m ay

no t u se th e d is tri ctco urt as a te st in g g ro un d fo r va rio us leg al th eo rie s. Se e Fla . Evergre en Fol ia ge , 47 0 F .3dat 1 04 2. Add it io na ll y , th e co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e cl ai m di d n otcure an y

de fic ie nc ie s of th e fi rs t am en de d c om

pl ai nt ’s m al ic io us pu rp os e o r wan to n b eh av io r cl ai m , whi chAlh al la q a lre ady

ha d a ss ert edwas “ ba si cal ly a con stru ct iv e d is ch arg e cl ai m ” in he r res po ns e to th e d efen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s. Inli be ral ly co ns tru in g t he m al ic io us pu rp os e o r wan to n b eh av io r cl ai m , th e d is tri ctco urt i n factco ns id eredth e co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e th eo ry ev enth ou ghAlh al la q h adrai se d itim pr op erl y . Neverth el es s, the di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth atsu cha th eo ry fai le d. Bec au se Alh al la q h as no t ch al le ng edth is de te rm in at io n o n app eal , sh e h as ab an do ne d a ny clai m

to th e co nt rary. Se e Ti mso n , 51 8 F .3dat 8 74 (st at in g “ is su es no t b rie fedon ap pe al by a pr o s e li ti ga ntare ab an do ne d” ). Fi na ll y , th e p ro po se d a m en de d c om pl ai nt ’s new cl ai m

forpuni ti ve da m ag es , pe r O.C.G.A. § 51 -1 2- 5.1 , wou ldbe fut il e b ecau se itm ak es co nc lu so ry all eg at io ns with n o fa ctua l b as is . Becau se pu ni ti ve da m ag es are d eri va ti ve of s ub st an ti ve to rt cl ai m s, an d t hu s ca n o nl y be award edas a dd it io na l d am ag es , andbe cau se Alh al la q

12ha s fa il edto all eg e a v al idto rt, l etalo ne de m on st rat e th atany of h er cl ai m s ar e vi ab le an d c ansu rv iv e th e d efen da nt ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s, h er cl ai m forpuni ti ve da m ag es wou ldne ces sa ril y fai l. Se e Li ll is to n v . Regi on s Ba nk, 28 8 Ga.Ap p. 2 41 , 24 6, 6 53 S.E.2d30 6, 3 11 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 07 ) (ex pl ai ni ng di sm is sa l o f to rt c la im s ne ces sa ril y

cau se s d is m is sa l o f cl ai m forpuni ti ve da m ag es ). Insu m , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de nyin g Al ha ll aq ’s m ot io n fo r le av e to fil e a s eco ndam en de d c om pl ai ntbe cau se th e p ro po se d a m en dm en ts wou ldbe fu ti le . Ind eed , Alh al la q’s p ro po se d s eco ndam en de d c om pl ai ntfai le d t o o ve rco m e he r fi rs t am en de d c om

pl ai nt ’s def

ic ie nc ie s an d o th erwi se fai le d t o s ta te va li d cl ai m s. AFFIRMED.

13