FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 31, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1286 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock et No. 0 5- 21 01 3- CV-PAS MAXIM O HADDAD , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us RAV BAHAMAS, LTD., GERARDO CAPO, D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (M ay 3 1, 200 7) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BA RKE T T a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Ma xim o H ad da d a

ppe al s th e distr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of his a ct iona ga ins t Ge rardo Capo and RAVBaham as L td. for failure to state a claim
. Ha ddad’s original
com plaint asserted state law claim s for brea ch of fiduc i ar y d ut y , s pe c i f i c p erfor m ance,2

constructive trust, and joint venture accounting. T he district court purportedlyhad subj ec t m at te r j ur isd ic tio n ba se d up on d ive rsit y of c iti ze nshi p. R

A V Baha m as a nd Ca po m ove d to dis m iss on the gr ound s that RA V Baha m as w as a fo re ignc or por at ion and Haddad w as a foreign indiv idual and, thus, there w as no diversity
. Ha ddad filed
a n a me n d e d c o mp l a i n t , i n w h i c h h e a d d e dap u r p o rt e df e d e r a l s e c u r i t i e s f

r au dc l a i m, inv oki ng the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ed er al que sti on j ur isd ic tio n. RAVBaham as and Capo again m oved to d ism iss the Com plaint un der Fe d. R. Ci v. P
. 12( b) (6 ), a rg uin g th at the Co m pla int f ai le d to a lle ge atr an sa ct ionin se cu ri tie s. A ft er or al a rg um en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t H ad da d fail ed to st at e a cl ai m f or securities fraud, and therefore failed to r aise a federa l questio n. The court granted RAV Baha m as a nd C ap o’ s 12 (b )( 6) m oti on, dis m iss ed H ad da d’ s se cu ri tie s f

ra ud claim , declined j urisdictio n over the pendant claim s, and clos ed the case. T his appeal fo llo w ed
. W e re view the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n de novo , u p h o l d i n g t h e l o we r c o u rt ’s decision “ onlyif it appears bey ond doub t that the allegations in the com plaint, when viewed in the light m ost favorable to the pl ai n t i ff , do not state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. ” Th eo haro us v . F ong , 256 F. 3d 12 19, 1224 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d he av ily on the f ourth c ir cu it de ci sio n in Robinson v. G ly nn , 349 F. 3d 16 6 (4th Cir. 2003), to hol d that Haddad’ s interests in com paniesI n reve rsing and remanding , we hold only that Hadda d’s complaint should have sur vived 1 Capo and RAV Ba

hama’ s 12(b)( 6) motion. Be y ond that, we make no judgme nt and offe r no opinion on the me ri ts o f H a dd a d’ s c la ims
. 3 w h i c h wo u l db e c r e a t e di n t h e f u tu r e d i d n o t c o n v e rth i s i n v e s t men ti n t o as e c u r i t y. R o b i n s on an d th is ca se , how ev er , a re not a lik e. I n R obi nson , the int er es t tha t the pla int if f w as to re ce ive w as “ ne ith er de nom ina te d st ock by t he pa rt ie s, nor did it poss ess all the usual char acter istics of stock.” Id . a t 173. That is not the case her e, as the agree m ent betwee n the parties ref ers to a “ Shareholders A greem ent,” discuss es

“ securities,” and calls the holders of these securities “ stockho lders.” The de fin it io n o f “ se cu rit y ” in fed eral sec ur it ie s l aws is qu it e b ro ad
. La ndre th Ti m be r Co. v. L andr et

h , 471 U
. S. 681 , 685 , 105 S
. Ct
. 229 7, 230 1 ( 1985 ). G ive n th is broad de f

i ni t i on a nd t he f

a c t t ha t w e m

us t t a ke a l l of t he c om

pl a i nt ’ s factual al le ga tio ns a s tr

ue a nd draw a ll inf

er en ce s inH ad da d’ s f

av or , w e fi nd tha t it cannot be said, as a m atter of law, that Ha ddad did not state a claim that im plicated federa l
se cu ri tie s law s. I n shor

t, it doe s not ap pe ar

“be y ond doub t tha t the a lle ga tio ns i n th e
com plaint, when view ed in the lig h t m o s t fa v o rable to the plaintiff, do no t state a cl ai m upo n w hic h r el ie f can be grante d. ” A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t cour t’ s j udgm en t is r ev er se d a nd the c as e is r em an de d f or f ur th er pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s opi nio n. 1 REV ERS ED AN D REMA ND ED
.