FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 12, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T 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. 06- 10371 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 1 8 2 2 - C V- OR L - 1 9 - DA B R A Y M O N D J . C A S C E L L A , M A N O S I N C ., A F lo r id aC o rp o r a tio n , R O L A N D C A R L S O N , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s C A N A V E R A L P O R T D I S T R I C T , a s pr ovi de d by F l or i daS e na t e B i l l N o. 3040 C H A P T E R 9 5 -4 6 5 , L A W S O F F L O R ID A d o i n g b u si n ess a s C a n a v e r a l P o r t A u th o r ity , R O D N E Y S . K E T C H A M , R A Y M O N D P . S H A R K E Y , D O N A L D N . M O L I T O R , R A L P H J . K E N N E D Y , C o m m is s io n e r s in th e irin d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c itie s , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 12, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P r o c e e d in g p r o s e , R a y m o n d J . C a s c e llaa n d R o la n d C a r ls o n , a lo n g w ith M a nos , I nc . , thr ough c ouns e l , appe a l f r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of C as ce l l a’ s c l ai m s of bankrup t cyfr aud and fr aud, and the grantof sum m ary j u d g me n ti n f

a v o ro f th e d e f e n d a n t s a s t o th e p l a i n t i f f s ’ c l a i ms u n d e r4 2 U . S. C. § 1 9 8 3 a n d th e irs ta te la w c la im s o f r e p le v in , e

je c tm e n t a n d c o n v e r s io n . T he pr e s e ntdi s put e a r os e a f t e rC a s c e l l al e a s e d pr ope r ty l oc a t e d i n C ape C anavera l , F l ori da, fr om C anavera l P ortA utho ri ty ( “ C P A ”) i n 1 99 1. M anos, Inc. a nd C a r l s on l a t e rbe c a m e s ubt e na nt s of C a s c e l l a . T he l e a s e be tw e e n C P A a nd C a s c e l l as pe c i f

i e d tha tC a s c e l l aw oul d pa y a l l a d va l or e m t a xe s l e vi e d on the p r e m is e s f

o rth e d u r a tio n o f

h is le a s e . I t a ls o s ta te d th a t C a s c e llaw a s n o t to

“ r e m ove a ny pe r s ona l pr ope r ty orf i xtur e s f r om the l e a s e d pr e m i s e s i f the r e i s a ny m one t a ry a m ountdue [ C P A ] f r om [ C a s c e l l a ] upon e xpi r a t i on ort e rm i na t i on of the [ l ] e a s e ” be c aus e “ [ s ] uc h pr ope r ty a nd f i xtur e s s ha l l be s e c ur i ty t o [ C P A ] f or3

paym entof any m on i es du e [ C P A ] . ” Ca s c e l l au l t i ma t e l y f

a i l e d t o p a y a d v a l o r e m t a x e s o n th e p r o p e r ty a n d CPA f ile d s u it. I n C a s c e llav . C a n a v e r a l P o r t A u th o r ity , 8 2 7 S o .2 d 3 0 8 , 3 0 9 - 1 0 ( F la . 5 th D C A 2002) , a n or de rof e vi c t i on i n the m a tt e rw a s a f f i rm e d. P r e vi ous l y , w hi l e the evi ct i on proceedi ng s w er e pendi ng , C as ce l l a w as al so i n federa l bank rupt cy pr oc e e di ngs , f

i r s tunde rC hapt e r13 a nd the n unde rC hapt e r7. H ow e ve r , the ba nkrupt c y s t a y w a s l i f

t e d a nd the s t a t e c our te vi c t i on pr oc e e de d t o f i na l j udgm e nt and affi rm ance on appeal . C as ce l l a’ s app ea l of the bank rupt cyorder w as deni ed a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a f

f irm e d th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t o r d e r . T h e r e a f te r , C a s c e lla f i l e d appr oxi m a t e l y s e ve n a c t i ons w i th va r i ous s t a t e a nd f e de r a l c our t s r a i s i ng i ss ues r el at ed t o the m att er s l i t i gat ed i n b oth the evi ct i on and b ankrup t cy p r o c e e d in g s . I n the pr e s e nta c t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d C a s c e l l a ’ s c l a i m s of ba nkrupt c y f

r aud a nd f

r aud, a nd gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof the d e f e n d a n t s a s t o th e p l a i n t i f f s ’ c l a i ms u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 , a n d a s t o th e i rs t a t e l a w c l a i ms of r e pl e vi n, e

j e c tm e nta nd c onve r s i on. O n appe a l , the pl a i nt i f

f s r a i s e num e r ous a r gum e nt s . T he pl a i nt i f f s c ont e nd th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f th e b a n k ru p tc y f

r au d a n d f

r au d c la im s w a s inIn dismiss ing Ca scella’ s fra ud and bankr

uptcy fra ud claims, the district court c onstrued 1 them as a motion for relief f rom a final judgment under F ed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), and determined that the motion should be brought in the court where thealleg ed fraud occurre d. Cascella c ited nosp e c if icle g al ba sisfo r his f

ra ud c laims , a nd do e s n ot disputethec ha

rac teri zation

of the se claims as a motion for relief f rom a final judgment under F ed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) base d upon fra ud. See F ed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3). 4 erro r. T h ey al so arg u e th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred i n g ran t i n g th e d efen d an t s’ 1 m o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t b a s e d u p o n th e d e te rm in a tio n th a t C a s c e lla 's e v ic tio n a c tio n w a s n o t ille g a lly r e m o v e d f r o m f e d e r a l b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t to s ta te courtw i tho utan order of re m and, ci t i ng 28 U . S . C . §§ 14 52 , 14 46 and 1 44 7. T hey a ls o c o n te n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to th e ir § 1 9 8 3 c la im b e c au s e C P A v io la te d th e ire q u a l p r o te c tio n a n d d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts b y s e iz in g th e irp r o p e r ty . C a s c e llaa n d M a n o s , I n c . c o n te n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly det erm i ned thatthey f

ai l ed t o com pl y w i th F l a. S t atut e 768 . 28 (6), w hi ch re qu i re d thatthey pre se ntthei r s t at e l aw cl ai m s i n w ri t i ng t o the D epartm entof F i nanci al S e rv ic e s b e f

o r e th e y c o u ld m a in ta in th e m in c o u r t. A p p a r e n tly in c o n n e c tio n w ith the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of the re pl evi n cl ai m , C ar l son and M anos, Inc. cont end thatthey w er e “ no ti n p ri vi ty of c on tra ct ” w i th C as ce l l a, and thatC P A had

“ no r i ghtt o s e i z e the i rr e m ovabl e pr ope r ty ” be c aus e the r e w a s notaj udgm e nt is s u e d a g a in s t th e m . I n c o n n e c tio n w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to h is5

cl ai m for c on vers i on , C as ce l l a a rgues thatthe court ’ s det erm i nat i on thata m et al bui l di ng on the l e a s e d pr ope r ty w a s a“ f i xtur e ” w a s e rr one ous be c aus e the bui l di ng w a s r e m ovabl e . F i na l l y , C a s c e l l aa r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by no t“ consi deri ng the ri gh t s of the debt or and the es t at e duri ng bank rupt cy . ” E a c h a r gum e nti s c ons i de r e d i n turn.

I . F r aud a nd B a nkrupt c y F r aud W e r evi ew the grantof a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss de no vo , t aki ng the fa ct s a l l eged i n the c om pl a i nta s true a nd c ons trui ng the m i n f a vorof the pl a i nt i f

f . W i l l i a m s v. B d . o f R e g e n ts o f

U n iv . S y s . o f

G a ., 4 4 1 F .3 d 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 9 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . U nde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 60( b) ( 3) apa r ty m a y be r e l i e ve d f r om af i na l j udgm e nt if th a t ju d g m e n t w a s o b ta in e d b y f r au d , m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n , o ro th e rm is c o n d u c t. F ed. R . C i v. P . 60 (b)( 3). “ A m ot i on [und erR ul e 60(b)] for r el i ef fr om fi nal j ud gm entm ustbe fi l ed i n the di stri ctcourtand i n the ac t i on i n w hi ch the ori gi nal j udgm e ntw a s e nt e r e d. ” B a nke r s M or t g. C o. v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 423 F . 2d 73, 78 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 0 ) . B e c aus e the a l l e ge d f

r aud a nd ba nkrupt c y f

r aud t ook pl a c e dur i ng ba nkrupt c y pr oc e e di ngs , a nd C a s c e l l a ’ s c l a i m w a s i n e f f e c tac ha l l e nge t o the b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t, s u c h aR u le 6 0 ( b ) m o tio n s h o u ld h a v e b e e n f ile d in the ba nkrupt c y c our t . T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of C a s c e l l a ’ s c l a i m s of

f r aud6

a nd ba nkrupt c yf

r aud w a s appr opr i a t e . S e e B a nke r s M or t g. C o. , 423 F . 2d a t78.

I I . S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 C la im W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo, appl y i ng the s a m e l e ga l s t a nda r ds us e d by the di s tr i c tc our t . H a rr i s v. C ow e t aC ounty , 433 F . 3 d 8 0 7 , 8 1 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). S u m m ary j u d g m en ti s ap p ro p ri at e i f th e p l ead i n g s, de pos i t i ons , a ns w e r s t o i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how the r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m a t e r i a l f a c ta nd tha tthe m ov i ng party i s e nt i t l ed t o j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 ; C el ot ex v . C a tr e tt, 4 7 7 U .S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 3 - 2 4 , 1 0 6 S .C t. 2 5 4 8 , 2 5 5 3 , 9 1 L .E d .2 d 2 6 5 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . W e v i ew th e ev i d en ce an d al l factu al i n feren ces th erefro m i n th e l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the pa r ty oppos i ng the m ot i on, a nd a l l r e a s onabl e doubt s aboutthe f a c t s a r e r e s ol ve d i n f

a vorof the nonm ova nt . B ur t on v. C i ty of B e l l e G l a de , 178 F . 3d 11 75 , 11 87 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). In rel ev an tp art , 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 st at es: E ve ry pe r s on w ho, unde rc ol orof [ s t a t e l a w ] . . . s ubj e c t s , or c au s e s to b e s u b

je c te d , a n y c itiz e n o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s . . . t o the depri vat i on of any r i gh t s, pri vi l eges , or i m m un i t i es s e c ur e d by the C ons t i tut i on a nd l a w s , s ha l l be l i abl e t o the party i nj ured i n an act i on atl aw , sui ti n equ i ty, or other p ro p er p ro ceed i n g fo r red ress. 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . W e a l s o r e vi e w de novo w he the ral a w s ui ti s ba rr e d by the doc tr i ne of7

r e s ju d ic a ta . R a g s d a le v . R u b b e rm a id , I n c ., 1 9 3 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . R e s j udi c a t aba r s apl a i nt i f f f r om br i ngi ng as ubs e que ntl a w s ui tw he n f our r e qui r e m e nt s a r e m e t : ( 1) the r e w a s af i na l j udgm e nton the m e r i t s ; ( 2) the de c i s i on w a s r e n d e r e d b y ac o u r t o f c o m p e te n t ju r is d ic tio n ; ( 3 ) th e p a r tie s , o rth o s e in p r iv ity w ith th e m , a r e id e n tic a l in b o th s u its ; a n d ( 4 ) th e s a m e c au s e o f a c tio n is i nv ol ved i n b oth cas es . R agsdal e, 19 3 F . 3d at12 38 . A s t o the fourth p rong , i f a c a s e a r i s e s o u to f

th e s a me n u c l e u s o f

o p e r a t i v e f

a c to ri s b a s e d u p o n th e s a me f a c tu a l p r e d i c a t e a s af

o rme ra c t i o n , th e tw o c a s e s a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o b e th e s a me c a u s e o f a c tio n . I d . a t 1 2 3 9 . H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c ite d th r e e b a s e s in g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to the § 1983 c l a i m . F i r s t , i tde t e rm i ne d tha tthe a l l e ge d c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i ons w e r e b a rr e d b y th e d o c tr in e o f r e s ju d ic a tab e c au s e th e p la in tif f s “h a d a m p le op po rtun i ty t o rai se these i ss ues . . . before the B ankrup t cyC ou rtand st at e tri al c o u r t,” b u t c h o s e n o t to d o s o . S e c o n d , it f o u n d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts w e r e le g a lly e nt i t l e d t o hol d the pl a i nt i f f s ’ pe r s ona l pr ope r ty i f

the r e w a s a ny m one t a ry a m ount due . T hi r d, i tf

ound no author i ty t o s uppor taf i ndi ng tha tthe a c t i ons a l l e ge d by th e p la in tif

f s g a v e r is e to ac au s e o f a c tio n u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 . F i r s t , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe i s s ue s r a i s e d i n the §1983 c la im w e r e b a rr e d b y th e d o c tr in e o f r e s ju d ic a taw a s c o rr e c t g iv e n th e ru lin g in8

C as ce l l a v. C anavera l P ortA utho ri ty, 82 7 S o. 2d 30 8, 30 9-10 (F l a. 5th D C A 20 02 ). S e e R a g s d a l e , 1 9 3 F . 3 d a t1 2 3 8 . T h o u g h n o tr e l i e d u p o n b y th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we a l s o not e tha tC a s c e l l ar a i s e d s i m i l a rorr e l a t e d c l a i m s i n appr oxi m a t e l y s e ve n s u b s e q u e n t f

ilin g s a s w e ll. S ec on d, even as sum i ng thatthe cl ai m w as no tbarr ed, the di stri ctcourtw as co rrectth atth e p l ai n t i ffs’ co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s w ere n o tv i o l at ed b y th e d efen d an t s’ s e i z ur e of

the pr ope r ty a nd t e rm i na t i on of the l e a s e hol d i nt e r e s ti n l i ghtof the t erm s of the l ea se and the order of evi ct i on af fi rm ed i n C as ce l l a, 82 7 S o. 2d at 3 0 9 - 1 0 . T hi r d, the pl a i nt i f

f s f a i l e d t o s pe c i f

y i n the di s tr i c tc our toron appe a l a ny ba s i s f orthe i ra r gum e nttha tthe de f e nda nt s ’ a c t i ons ga ve r i s e t o ac aus e of a c t i on un der § 19 83 , and n o such b as i s i s app ar ent . B as ed up on the foregoi ng , the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t e rrin g r a n tin g th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to th i s c l a i m. I I I . St a t e La w Cl a i ms I n gr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e nta s t o the pl a i nt i f f s ’ s t a t e l a w c l a i m s of re pl evi n, ej ec tm ent , and con vers i on , the di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned thateven i f they m etthe re qu i re m ent s of F l a. S t atut e 768 . 28 (6), they s t i l l w ou l d n othave been ent i t l ed t o rel i ef

because they had no l egal l y c og ni zabl e i nt er es ti n the cl ai m ed9

pr ope r ty . T he pl a i nt i f

f s do notdi s put e thi s de t e rm i na t i on on appe a l . I nde e d, the d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly d e te rm in e d th a t ( 1 ) th e le a s e p r o v id e d th a t C P A c o u ld r e ta in a n y p e r s o n a l p r o p e r ty o f C a s c e llaf

o ra m o u n ts d u e to it, a s le s s o r , ( 2 ) th e F if th D i stri ctC ou rtof A pp ea l foun d i n C as ce l l a, 82 7 S o. 2d at30 9-10 , thatad val orem t axes w er e partof the re nt , and (3) C P A w as ow ed $8 0, 00 0 i n ad v al orem t axes . It al so corr ec t l y not ed thatthe pl ai nt i ff s f ai l ed t o sho w thatthe $8 0, 00 0 i n ad v al orem t a xe s due ha d be e n pa i d. B e c aus e the gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntw a s pr ope ron th is g r o u n d , w e d e c lin e to s p e c if ic a lly c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e p la in tif f s m e t s ta te p ro ced u ral fi l i n g req u i rem en t s. I V . S u b le s s e e s ’ N o - P r iv ity C la im U n d e rF lo r id ala n d lo r d - te n a n t la w as u b le s s e e c a n ta k e n o g r e a te rr ig h ts in the pr ope r ty tha n i t s s ubl e s s or . B obo v. V a ngua r d B a nk a nd T rus tC o. , I nc . , 512 S o . 2 d 2 4 6 , 2 4 7 (F l a. 1 stD C A 1 9 8 7 ). F o r ex am p l e, w h ere a “m ast er l ease [i s] c a n c e lle d a s ar e s u lt o f

th e d e f au lt o f th e le s s e e in n o t p a y in g th e p r o p e r ty ta x e s . . . the subl ea se [f

al l s] as a m att erof l aw , and the subl es se e s ho ul d [be] evi ct ed. ” T hal v . S .G .D . C o rp ., 6 2 5 S o .2 d 8 5 2 , 8 5 3 ( F la . 3 d D C A 1 9 9 3 ) . A s a n i ni t i al m att er , w e not e thatthe di stri ctcourtgrant ed sum m ary j udgm e nta s t o the r e pl e vi n c l a i m , f i r s t , ba s e d upon af

i ndi ng tha ti tw a s ba rr e d by the do ctri ne of re s j ud i ca t a. F or the sa m e r ea sons as se tforth, supra, and b ec ause ,10

as se tforth m ore f

ul l y bel ow , C ar l son and M anos, Inc. w er e i n p ri vi ty of c on tra ct w i th C as ce l l a, thi s c l ai m i s a l so barr ed by re s j ud i ca t a. S ee R agsdal e, 19 3 F . 3d at 1 2 3 8 .E ve n a s s um i ng a r gue ndo tha tthe r e pl e vi n c l a i m w a s notba rr e d by the doc tr i ne of

r e s j udi c a t a , the r e w a s no e rr ora s the de t e rm i na t i on tha tC P A di d not w ro n g fu l l y sei ze C arl so n an d M an o s, In c. ’ s p ro p erty. S p eci fi cal l y, b ecau se C a s c e lla ’s p r o p e r ty w a s s u b je c t to s e iz u r e u n d e rth e c o n tr a c t, th e r e w a s n o e rr o rin C P A ’ s s ei zure of the prop erty of the subl es se es as w el l . S ee B ob o, 51 2 S o. 2d at 2 4 7 . V . C onve r s i on C l a i m – F i xtur e A r gum e nt U n d e rF lo r id ala w , a“f

ix tu r e ” is c h a tte l th a t h a s b e e n p h y s ic a lly a n n e x e d to r e a l ty w i th the i nt e ntof m a ki ng i tpa r tthe r e of

, a nd tha ti s notr e m ovabl e w i thout i nj uri ng the fr ee ho l d. G re enw al d v . G ra ham , 13 0 S o. 60 8, 61 0 (F l a. 19 30 ). F orthe s a m e r e a s ons s e tf or th pr e vi ous l y , C a s c e l l a ’ s c l a i m of c onve r s i on w a s b a rr e d b y th e d o c tr in e o f r e s ju d ic a ta . S e e R a g s d a le , 1 9 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 8 . E ven ass um i ng ar gu endo thatthi s c l ai m w er e notbarr ed, the di stri ctcourt d id n o t e rrin its d e te rm in a tio n a s to th e c h a r a c te r iz a tio n o f th e b u ild in g a t is s u e . S p e c if ic a lly , C a s c e llate s tif

ie d th a t th e b u ild in g w a s tw o s to r ie s ta ll, m a d e o f m e ta l, a nd bol t e d t o ac onc r e t e s l ab. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha tthe bui l di ng w a s pr e s e nton the prop erty w hen h e e nt er ed i nt o the l ea se agre em ent . B as ed up on these fa ct s, there11

w as no error a s t o the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe bu i l di ng had b ee n p h y s i c a l l y a n n e x e d t o r e a l tyw i th th e i n t e n to f ma k i n g i tp a r tth e r e o f

. Se e G r a h a m, 1 3 0 S o . a t 6 1 0 . V I . C a s c e l l a ’ s R i ght s of D e bt or C a s c e llaa r g u e s f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ig n o r e d h is r i ght s a s ade bt ori n ba nkrupt c y by f a i l i ng t o r e c ogni z e aba nkrupt c y di s c ha r ge of d eb t s. W e do notc ons i de ra r gum e nt s r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l unl e s s one o f f iv e e x c e p tio n s is m e t. N a r e y v . D e a n , 3 2 F .3 d 1 5 2 1 , 1 5 2 6 - 2 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . T h e e x c e p tio n s a r e : ( 1 ) th e is s u e in v o lv e s ap u r e q u e s tio n o f la w a n d r e f

u s a l to consi der i tw ou l d res ul ti n a m i sc arri age of j ust i ce ; (2) the appel l anti s r ai si ng an obj ec t i on t o an o rderw hi ch he had n o o pp ortun i ty t o rai se atthe di stri ctcourt le v e l; ( 3 ) th e in te r e s t o f s u b s ta n tia l ju s tic e is a t s ta k e ; ( 4 ) th e p r o p e rr e s o lu tio n is beyond any dou bt ; or (5) the i ss ue pres ent s s i gn i fi ca ntqu es t i on s of gener al i m pact o ro f g r e a t p u b lic c o n c e rn . N a r e y , 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 5 2 6 - 2 7 . A s a n i ni t i a l m a tt e r , f

orthe s a m e r e a s ons s e tf or th above , thi s a r gum e nt appe a r s t o ha ve be e n ba rr e d by the doc tr i ne of r e s j udi c a t a . S e e R a gs da l e , 193 F . 3d at12 38 . In any e vent , C as ce l l a di d n otra i se thi s a rgum enti n the di stri ct c o u r t. B e c au s e n o n e o f th e e x c e p tio n s a r e m e t, w e d e c lin e to c o n s id e rth is a r gum e nta s a n i ni t i a l m a tt e r . S e e N a r e y , 32 F . 3d a t1526- 27.12

A lte rn a tiv e ly , to th e e x te n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p lie d ly r e je c te d th is a r g u me n t , th e r e w a s n o e rr o r . Sp e c i f i c a l l y , th e r e c o r d s h o w s th a t , u n d e rth e t e rms of the l e a s e , C P A w a s e nt i t l e d t o r e t a i n “ pe r s ona l pr ope r ty orf i xtur e s f r om the l e a s e d pr e m i s e s i f

the r e i s a ny m one t a ry a m ountdue [ C P A ] f r om [ C a s c e l l a ] upon expi ra t i on or t erm i nat i on of the [l ] ea se . ” F urther, a F l ori da courtordered C as ce l l a’ s e vi ct i on , and h e f ai l ed t o al l ege i n the di stri ctcourtthathe there af t er h a d d is c h a r g e d th e $ 8 0 ,0 0 0 d e b t. A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin th is r e s p e c t. B a s e d upon the f

or e goi ng, w e a f

f i rm the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of C a s c e l l a ’ s ba nkrupt c y f r aud a nd f

r aud c l a i m s , a nd i t s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nt as t o th e p l ai n t i ffs’ rem ai n i n g cl ai m s. AF F I RME D.