FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 27, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 15 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :8 4- cv -0 01 48 -MP BILL R. W INCHESTER, on be ha lf o f hi m se lf a ndall ot he r st oc kh ol de rs of Fl or id a Farm

BureauEqu it ie s, In c., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n s im il arl y si tu at ed , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff s, vers us FLORIDA FARM BUREAU EQUITIES INC, a Fl or id a co rp or at io n. ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, a n on pro fitge ne ral farm m em be rs hi p, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU HOLDING CORPORATION, CARL B. LOOP, JR., an d S OUTHERN FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMP ANY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Mo va nt s - Ap pe ll ees , vers usBADGER PLAINTIFFS,

on be ha lf o f Gen e Bad ge r, Jo hn Lov e, Marvi n Ev an s, Si d B an ackan d J oh n Wil li s as cla ss m em

be rs of t he in st an t ca se , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en ts - App el la nt s.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 27 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Gen e Bad ge r, Jo hn Lov e, Marvi n Ev an s, Si d B an ack , andJo hn W il li s, de riv at iv el y

on be ha lf o f Pl ai nt iff

s’ Sha reh ol de rs Co rp or at io n (P SC) andon be ha lf of th em se lv es an d a ll ot he r PSC s ha reh ol de rs who own edsh ares fro m Aug us t 2 5, 20 04 to Octo be r 15 , 20 04 (th e p la in ti ffs ) ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er en joi ni ng th ei r two cla ss act io n l aws ui ts fil edin20 08 an d c urren tl y pe nd in g i n F lo rid a st at e co urt. The pl ai nt iff

s co nt en d t ha t the fed eral di st ric t co urt l ack edau th or ity to en joi n t he st at e la wsu it s u nd er the Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act, 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 83 , bec au se th e in jun ct io n was no t “ ne ces sa ry inaidof i ts juri sd ic ti on .” I.

2In19 84 a cl as s o f sh areh ol de rs , whi chin cl ud edth e p la in ti ffs , fil eda 1 se cu rit ie s cl as s ac ti on inth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a ag ai ns t v irtua ll y th e sa m e de fen da nt s i nv ol ve d i n t hi s ap pe al . In 1 98 7 t he di stric t co urt en te reda fi na l o rd er 2 an d ju dg m en t, wh ic h app ro ve d a ndin co rp or at edth e p art ie s’ st ip ul at io n o f se tt le m en t an d s et tl em en t ag reem en t fo r th atcla ss act io n. Th e p art ie s ag reedin th e st ip ul at io n o f se tt le m en t an d t he set tl em en t ag reem en t tha t the sh areh ol de r cl as s “ sh al l b e en ti tl edto rece iv e th e sa m e fi na nc ia l b en efi ts itwou ldrece iv e if it own edou tri gh t 2 7.7 % of t he co m m on st oc k o f” o ne of t he de fen danten ti ti es . To acco m pl is h t ha t, the ord er an d t he set tl em en t d oc um en ts requi redon e o f th e de fen da nt s t o i ss ue a de be ntur e to th e cl as s o f sh areh ol de rs , whi chgave th atcla ss th e sa m e fi na nc ia l b en efi ts as o wni ng th e co m m onst oc k i n t ha t d efen dant . The st ip ul at io n o f se tt le m en t al so pro vi de d t ha t the de fen da nt s “ wil l n ottak e, orpe rm it an y act io n . . . , whi chwou lddi lu te or r educ e th e in te res t o f” the sh areh ol de r cl as s. The di stric t co urt’s 1 98 7 o rd er al so pro vi de d t ha t: “ Ju ris di ct io n i s h ereb y ret ai ne d . . . as t o a ll m at te rs rel at in g t o t he adm in is tra ti on , con su m m at io n, en fo rcem en t, an d/ orin te rp ret at io n o f th e te rm s o f th e [p art ie s’ st ip ul at io n o f se tt le m en t an d s et tl em en t ag reem en t].” The p art ie s ag reedinth e st ip ul at io n o f All of the plaintiffs in this appea l were amongthe member s of the 1984 cla ss of 1 share holders or in privity

with a member

of that cla ss. Carl L oop, J r., who is a de fenda nt in this appea l, was not named in the 1987 la wsuit, but 2 he wa s an off

icer of one of the def endants that wa s named in that lawsuit.

3se tt le m en t tha t the di st ric t co urt “ sh al l re ta in juri sd ic ti on with re sp ectto

en fo rcem en t, co ns tru ct io n a nd/o r in te rp ret at io n o f th e te rm s o f th e [s ti pu la ti on ] an d a ny agre em en t(s ) rel at edth eret o.” Add it io na ll y , th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t 3 pr ov id edth at“ [a]ll pa rti es to th is Agre em en t ac kn owl ed ge an d c on se ntto : . . . th e Uni te d S tate s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a h av in g juris di ct io n with re sp ectto th e en fo rcem en t, co ns tru ct io n, an d/ orin te rp ret at io n o f th e te rm s o f th is Agre em en t an d t he [st ip ul at io n o f se tt le m en t].” In19 95 th e sh areh ol de r cl as s, wh ic h, as we ha ve alr eady m en ti on ed , in cl ud edth e p la in ti ffs , setou t t o fo rm PSC t o h ol d the de be ntur e o n t he ir b eh al f. The di st ric t co urt en te redanord er, wh ic h was ag reedto an d s ig ne d b y all pa rti es , ap pr ov in g P SC’s fo rm at io n. Inth atord er the di stric t co urt s umm ari zedit s 1 98 7 or de r an d t he in co rp or at edset tl em en t d oc um en ts , st at in g i n p artth atit“ ret ai ne d juri sd ic ti on as t o a ll m at te rs rel at in g t o the adm in is tra ti on , con su m m at io n, en fo rcem en t, o r in te rp ret at io n” of t he ord er an d s et tl em en t d oc um en ts an d t ha t “ al l [s ha reh ol de rs , in cl ud in g t he pl ai nt iff s,] and[th e d efen da nt s] agr eedth atall m at te rs rel at in g t o s ai d s et tl em en t wo ul d p ro pe rly andex cl us iv el y be bro ug htinth is Co urt.” ( em

ph as is ad de d) . The pa rties also agree d in the stipulation t o submit a final order “[r]eservingjurisdiction 3 over a ll matters relating to the a dministration, consummation, and e nforc ement of the settlement provided he rein.” 4In20 04 on e o f th e d efen da nt s p ur ch as edth e d eb en tu re fro m PSC. In20 08 th e p la in ti ffs , as s ha reh ol de rs of P SC, fi le d t wo s ta te co urt ac ti on s i n F lo rid a, in cl ud in g ash areh ol de rs ’ cl as s ac ti on an d ade riv at iv e act io n o n b eh al f of PSC, whi chbo th aro se ou t o f th e sa le of t he de be ntur e. The s ta te co urt co m pl ai nt s 4 al le ge d t ha t the de fen da ntth atha d p ur ch as edth e d eb en tu re fro m PSC d idso witho utful ly info rm in g t he pl ai nt iff s b efo re the sal e ab ou t ce rta in cir cu m st an ces rel at edto th e v al ue of t he de be ntur e. Bo th co m pl ai nt s i nc lu de d acla im

ag ai ns t the de fen da nt s fo r al le ge d br each es of t he 19 87 st ip ul at io n o f se tt le m en t an d s ettl em en t ag reem en t, wh ic h, as we ha ve alr eady

no te d, wer e in co rp or at edin to th e d is tri ctco urt’s 1 98 7 fi na l o rd er an d ju dg m en t. The act io ns als o i nc lu de d c la im s fo r al le ge d b reac he s o f fi du ci ary du ti es th atwere p ur

po rte dl y owedby the de fen da nt s t o P SC an d t o the pl ai nt iff s di rect ly und er the ord er, the set tl em en t d oc um en ts , andth e d eb en tu re cr eat ed pu rs ua ntto th e o rd er an d s et tl em en t d oc um en ts . 5 On No ve m

be r 25 , 20 08 , th e d efen da nt s m ov edto en joi n the pe nd in g s ta te co urt ac ti on s i n t he fed eral di st ric t co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a. Aro un d t he same tim e, th e d efen da nt s al so fil eda m ot io n i n t he Flo rid a st at e co urt The c omplaints also named various office rs of the de fenda nt entities in the state court 4 actions. The de rivative a ction also included a claim for f

raud in the induc ement ag ainst the 5 defe ndant that purc hased the debentur e. 5fo r a s tay

pe nd in g ade ci si on by the fed eral di st ric t co urt. The st at e co urt ac te d fir ston Jan ua ry

13 , 20 09 an d g ran te d the st ay . The s ta te co urt re as on edth ata st ay was ne ces sa ry

be cau se th e st at e co urt l aws ui ts li ke ly inv ol ve “ is su es pe rta in in g t o” th e 1 98 7 fe de ral co urt o rd er an d t he set tl em en t d oc um en ts in co rp or at edinth at or de r, “ whi chth e Uni te d S tate s Di st ric t Co urt h as res erv edjuri sd ic ti on to en fo rce.” On Ap ril 9, 2 01 0, the di st ric t co urt g ran te d the de fen dant s’ m ot io n fo r an in jun ct io n b as edon it s au th or ity un de r th e All Writ s Act , 28 U.S.C. § 1 65 1( a). 6 The co urt al so fou ndth atth e in jun ct io n fe ll withi n o ne of t he ex cep ti on s t o t he ge ne ral pro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t fe de ral co urts en joi ni ng st at e co urt ac ti on s i n t he Ant iIn jun ct io n Act , 28 U.S.C. § 2 28 3. Sp eci fic al ly, th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d “ th atan in jun ct io n i s n eces sa ry

inaidof i ts co nt in ui ng juri sd ic ti on ov er [i ts ord er an d t he se tt le m en t d oc um en ts in co rp or at edinth atord er].” The p la in ti ffs co nt en d t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby find in g t ha t the in jun ct io n was all owe d u nd er tha t ex cep ti on to th e Ant i-I nju nc ti onAct. II.

In their brief

s, the plaintiffs do not challeng e the district cour t’s authority

to issue the 6 injunction under the All Writs Act and have thus abandone d that issue in this appeal. See A cce ss Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines, Inc., 385 F .3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). 6Whe th er a d is tri ctco urt h as th e au th or ity to en joi n ast at e co urt ac ti on un de r anex cep ti on to th e Ant i-I njunc ti on Act i s a que st io n o f la w th atwe rev ie w de no vo . See Tran So ut h F in an ci al Co rp . v. Bel l, 1 49 F.3d12 92 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f it s o wn o rd ers on ly for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Al le y v. U.S. Dep ’t of Hea lth & Hum . Serv s., 5 90 F.3d11 95 , 12 02 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Defere nc e is ap pr op ria te be cau se “ th e d is tri ctco urt i s i n th e b es t p os it io n t o i nt erp retit s o wn o rd ers .” Id . The Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act p ro hi bi ts fed eral co urts fro m en joi ni ng st at e co urt act io ns un le ss th e in

jun ct io n fa ll s wi th in th ree e xc ep ti on s t o t ha t g en eral pr oh ib it io n. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 83 ; Weschv. Fo ls om , 6 F.3 d 1 46 5, 1 47 0 (1 1t h C ir. 19 93 ). One e xc ep ti on all ows a di st ric t co urt t o e njo in a st at e co urt ac ti onwhen do in g s o i s “ ne ces sa ry

inaidof i ts juri sd ic ti on .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 28 3; W es ch , 6 F.3 d at14 70 . To fal l wi th in th atex cep ti on , th e in jun ct io n m

us t b e n eces sa ry

“ to pr ev en t a s tate co urt fr om so in te rfer in g wi th a fed eral co urt’s co ns id erat io n o r di sp os it io n o f a cas e as to ser io us ly im pa ir t he fed eral co urt’s fl ex ib il ity an d au th or ity to de ci de th atcas e.” Wesch , 6 F.3 d a t 1 47 0 (quo ti ng Atl . Coa stLin e R.R. Co . v. Bro th erh oo d o f Loc om ot iv e Eng ’rs, 39 8 U.S. 2 81 , 29 5, 9 0 S .Ct. 1 73 9, 17 47 (19 70 ). The ex cep ti on is av ai labl e to th e d is tri ctco urt b ot h b efo re an d a fte r

7it s en try of fi na l ju dg m en t. See Bat tl e v . Lib erty Nat’l Lif e In s. Co ., 87 7 F .2d87 7, 88 1 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 9) . Inth is cas e th e d is po si ti on of t he st at e co urt ac ti on s wo ul d re qu ire in te rp ret at io n o r en fo rcem en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er an d the set tl em en t do cu m en ts in co rp or at edinth atord er. Bo th co m pl ai nt s fi le d b y

th e p la in ti ffs qu ot edfro m

an d re li edhe av il y

on th e 1 98 7 o rd er, the set tl em en t d oc um en ts , and th e d eb en tu re cr eat edpu rs ua ntto th e o rd er an d s et tl em en t d oc um en ts . In fa ct , th e pl ai nt iff s ev enatt ach edth e 1 98 7 o rd er, the st ip ul at io n o f se tt le m en t, the set tl em en t ag reem en t, an d t he de be ntur e cre at edpu rs ua ntto th e o rd er as ex hi bi ts to bo th st at e co urt co m

pl ai nt s. Inth e b reac h o f co nt ractcla im in cl ud edineach co m

pl ai nt , th e pl ai nt iff s s pe ci fic al ly alle ge d t ha t the de fen da nt s “ br each edth e St ip ul at io n o f Set tl em en t an d/ orth e [s et tl em en t ag reem en t] inth e m an ne r he rei n a ll eg edwhi ch res ul te d i n P SC re cei vi ng les s fo r th e Deb en ture tha n i t wo ul d h aditown ed ou tri gh t 2 7.7 % of t he co m m on st oc k.” The bre ach of f

iduc iary du ty clai m s an d t he frau d c la im si m il arl y rel y on th e 19 87 ord er. As we h av e al read y m en ti on ed , inbo th th e st ip ul at io n o f se tt le m en t an d t he set tl em en t ag reem en t the de fen da nt s ag reedth atth e p la in ti ffs “ sh al l b e en ti tl edto rece iv e th e sam e fi na nc ia l b en efi ts [th ey ] wou ldrece iv e if [th ey ] own ed ou tri gh t 2 7.7 % of” co m

m onst oc k a ndth e d efen da nt s p ro m is edth atth ey wou ld

8no t t ak e o r pe rm itact io n t ha t wo ul d re du ce o r di lu te th e p la in ti ffs ’ be ne fit s. Th e

pl ai nt iff s al le ge d fo r th ei r fi du ci ary du ty clai m s tha t the de fen da nt s o wedth em a du ty “no t t o t ak e an y

act io n . . . th atwou ldres ul t i n P SC re cei vi ng les s fi na nc ia l be ne fitforth e Deb en tu re tha n i t wo ul d i f itown edou tri gh t 2 7.7 % of t he st oc k.” Si m il arl y , th e p la in ti ffs all eg edforth ei r frau d c la im th aton e o f th e d efen da nt s frau du le nt ly induc edPSC t o s el l the de be ntur e fo r le ss th anth e “ fin an ci al be ne fit s itwou ldrece iv e if

itown edou tri gh t 2 7.7 % of t he st oc k.” Bot h o f th os e cl ai m s ar e th us ba se d o n t he pro m is es m ad e b y th e d efen da nt s i n t he st ip ul at io n o f se tt le m en t an d t he set tl em en t ag reem en t. Perh ap s m os t t el li ng is th e p la in ti ffs ’ reque stfor att orne y ’s fees un de r th e 19 87 st ip ul at io n o f se tt le m en t. The pl ai nt iff s d em an de d a tt orne y ’s fees inbo th st at e co urt l aws ui ts un de r se ct io n 3 0 o f th e st ip ul at io n o f se tt le m en t, wh ic h pr ov id es th atif “ th e en fo rcem en t, co ns tru ct io n, an d/ orin te rp ret at io n o f th is [s ti pu la ti onof s et tl em en t] is th e subjec t o f li ti ga ti on be twee n t he pa rti es , th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty sh al l b e en ti tl edto rece iv e rea so nabl e atto rn ey ’s fees .” Thu s fo r th e p la in ti ffs to ge t at to rn ey ’s fees , th e subjec t o f th e li ti ga ti on ha d t o b e th e en fo rcem en t, co ns tru ct io n, o r in te rp ret at io n o f th e 1 98 7 s ti pu la ti on of s et tl em en t. It i s thu s cl ear t ha t the di sp os it io n o f th e cl ai m s al le ge d i n the st at e co urt lawsu it s wo ul d re qu ire th e Fl or id a st at e co urt t o i nt erp retan d e nf or ce the 19 87

9di st ric t co urt o rd er an d t he set tl em en t d oc um en ts th e o rd er i nc or po rat ed . The di st ric t co urt, h owe ve r, co nc lu de d i n i ts 19 95 ord er, wh ic h t he pl ai nt iff s ag reedto , th atit s juris di ct io n o ve r th e d is po si ti on of s uc h c la im s was ex cl us iv e. Infact , th at 19 95 ord er s ta te s tha t “ al l m at te rs rel at in g t o” th e en fo rcem en t o r in te rp ret at io n o f th e o rd er, i nc lu di ng th e se tt le m en t d oc um en ts in co rp or at edinth atord er, “ wou ld pr op erl y an d e xc lu si ve ly be b ro ug htin ” th e d is tri ctco urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ct of Flo rid a. The d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n c on cl ud in g t ha t i t h ad ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on ov er the cla im s. See Bat tl e, 87 7 F .2dat 8 81 (“ [T]he n eed fo r ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on inth e fed eral di st ric t co urt was reco gn iz edby the di st ric t co urt’s ex pl ic itret en ti onof ju ris di ct io n i n i ts fin al jud gm en t.”) . Bec au se st at e co urt ju dg m en ts on th e cl ai m s co ul d h av e res jud ic at a eff ect , al lo win g t he st at e co urt ac ti on s t o p ro ceedth reat en edth e fed eral co urt’s ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on ov er the m . Stat edso m ewh atdi ffer en tl y , any sta te co urt d is po si ti on of th e cl ai m s o n t he m eri ts wou ld“ se rio us ly im pa ir t he fed eral co urt’s fl ex ib il ity an d au th or ity ” to de ci de is su es rel at edto it s 1 98 7 o rd er o ve r whi chitha d re ta in ed ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on . The i nju nc ti on cle arl y was i n a idof t he di st ric t co urt’s juri sd ic ti on . AFFIRMED.

10