[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 42 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cv -0 01 91 -RWS CARLOS H. HENRIQUEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t, vers us EL PAIS Q'HUBOCALI.COM, RODRIGO LLOREDA MENA, ALFREDO DOMINGUEZ BORRERO, MARIA LUCIA LLOREDA GARCES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es .

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 6, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, JORDAN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 1 of 14Carl os Henr ique z, pr oc eed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di sm is sa l o f hi s d iv ers it y

la wsu itforlac k o f pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er the de fen da nt s, El Pai s Q’ Hub oc al i.co m

(“ El Pai s” ), a co rp or at io n re gi st eredan d d oi ng bu si ne ss in Co lo m bi a, an d s ev eral in di vi du al s as so ci at edwith El Pai s, wh o wer e al so cit iz en s of Co lo m bi a (co ll ect iv el y

“ th e d efen dant s” ). Hen rique z, a ci ti zen of Ge or gi a, fi le d t hi s l aws ui t ag ai ns t the Co lo m bi an de fen da nt s i n t he Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a. He all eg ed th atth e d efen dant s p ub li sh edde fam at ory art ic le s ag ai ns t h im

inEl Pai s’s ne wsp ap ers in Sp an is h i n C ol om bi a an d t ha t anon li ne ve rs io n o f th e Sp an is h ne wsp ap er was vi si bl e in Geor gi a. Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s di sm is sa l o f Hen rique z’s co m pl ai ntforlac k o f pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er the Co lo m bi ande fen da nt s. I. BACK GROUND FACTS A. Subj ect o f the New sp ap er Arti cl es Acco rd in g t o Hen rique z’s co m pl ai nt , he andhi s wi fe h adtrave le d t o Co lo m bi a to see k t reat m en t fo r hi s wi fe’s i nf ert il it y . Afterth e tr eat m en t at te m pt s 1 pr ov edun su cces sf

ul , th e ferti li ty clin ic in Co lo m bi a advi se d t he co up le to ret ai n a
Be cause this case wa s decide d on a motion to dism iss, we take thefac ts from 1 Henriquez’s complaint and ac cept them a s true. See F urry v. Miccosukee Tribe of

Indians of Fla., 685 F .3d 1224, 1226 n.2 (11th Cir. 2012). 2

Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 2 of 14su rro ga te m ot he r an d p ro vi de d t he m with ali stof l oc al wom enwil li ng to be co m e su rro ga te s. Hen rique z an d h is wife en te redin to a co nt ractwith o ne of t he li st edwom en , who ev en tu al ly became preg na ntan d g av e b irt h t o t win s. Alt ho ug h t he su rro ga te m ot he r rec ei ve d “ go odfin an ci al co m pe ns at io n” forhe r se rv ic es , sh e d em an de d
m or e m on ey

th anth e ag reem en t ca ll edfor . Whe n Hen rique z ref us ed , th e su rro ga te m ot he r de ci de d t o k eep th e ch il dr enan d a skfor ali m on y . Henri qu ez an d hi s wi fe s ue d t he su rro ga te m ot he r in a Co lo m bi anco urt, wh ic h ru le d i n t he ir fav oran d a ward edth em

cu st od y of t he ch il dr en . Sho rtl y

th erea fte r, Hen rique z, hi s wife , andth e ch il dr enreturne d t o t he Uni te d S ta te s. The su rro ga te m ot he r ap pe al edth atrul in g t o t he hi gh es t co urt i n C ol om bi a. Tha t h ig h c ou rt e ve ntua ll y is su eda de ci si on , whi ch be cam e p ub li c in Ju ly 201 0. 2 The de fen da ntEl Pai s t he n p ub li sh edart ic le s ab ou t the cas e in Co lo m bi an ne wsp ap ers , andals o p la cedth e art ic le s o nl in e, whi ch m ean t the y co ul d b e acce ss edin th e Uni te d S ta te s. Acco rd in g t o Hen rique z, th e art ic le s fa ls el y st at ed th at(1) th e h ig he stco urt o rd eredth e ch il dr enreturne d t o t he su rro ga te m ot he r, th ereb y im pl y in g t ha t Hen rique z ab du ct edth e ch il dr en ; (2 ) th e ch il dr enwere b orn

Henriquez’s complaint does not state exactly what “the highe st court” in Colombia held 2 or the name of that c ourt. 3

Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 3 of 14as a res ul t o f Hen rique z’s il li ci t af fai r wit h t he su rro ga te m ot he r; a nd(3) th e eg gs us edinth e in vi tro fert il iz at io n wer e p ro ve n t o b el on g t o t he su rro ga te m ot he r, rathe r th anHenr ique z’s wife . B. Feder al Compla in t in the Uni ted St at es Bas edon th e ab ov e fac ts , Henr ique z’s co m pl ai ntall eg edtwo co un ts of

“ de fam at io n p er s e” an d a sk edforco m pe ns at ory an d p un it iv e d am ag es ex ceed in g $7 5,0 00 . Henri qu ez al le ge d tha t the ab ov e n ews pape r art ic le s co nt ai ne d “ fal se m al ic io us de fam at io n i nju rin g [h is ] rep ut at io n andexpo si ng hi m to publ ic ha tre d, co nt em ptan d ri di cu le .” His co m pl ai ntall eg edth atth e d is tri ctco urt h adpe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er the Co lo m bi ande fen da nt s b ecau se th ei r de fam at ory st at em en ts were p ub li sh edinpri ntan d o n t he ir we b p ag e th atwas “ se enin Geor gi a.” The Co lo m

bi ande fen da nt s m ov edto di sm is s t he co m pl ai ntfor lac k o f pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on an d fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . As t o p ers on al juri sd ic ti on , th e d efen da nt s ar gu edth atHenr ique z’s co m pl ai ntfai le d t o a ll eg e su ffi ci en t fa ct s to est ab li sh juri sd ic ti on un de r Geo rg ia ’s lo ng -arm st atut e, Ga. Co de Ann . § 9 -1 0- 91 . Befo re the di st ric t co urt ru le d o n t he de fen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s, Hen rique z fi le d n um ero us ex hi bi ts , con si st in g m os tl y of i m ag es of t he de fen da nt s’

4 Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 4 of 14web pa ge s an d t he adve rti se m en ts co nt ai ne d t he rei n. 3

Mo re s pe ci fic al ly, so m e o f th e ex hi bi ts are co pi es of t he de fen da nt s’ In te rn etweb p ag es co nt ai ni ng adve rti se m en ts by U .S. co m pa ni es , su ch as Co m cas t, Sp rin t, Al ls ta te , andPubl ix . The o nl in e ad ve rti se m en ts , see n o n t he 4 de fen da nt s’ web p ag es , app ear t o c on ta in li nk s t o t he webs it es of t he U.S. co m pa ni es , su chas C om cas t o r All st at e. A us er’s cl ic ki ng on th es e li nk s wi ll tak e th e u se r to th e U.S. co m

pani es ’ web si te s, wh ic h, i n turn, al lo ws the us er t o s ee tha t th e U.S. co m

pa ni es ha ve lo cat io ns in Geor gi a an d a re d oi ng bu si ne ss in Geor gi a. Andso m e o f Henrique z’s ex hi bi ts ap pe ar t o b e se pa rat e im ag es of t he U.S. co m pa ni es ’ own webs it es , sh owi ng th e co m pa ni es ’ Geo rg ialo cat io ns . Inad di ti on to th e ab ov e, Hen rique z subm it te d c op ie s o f se ve ral web p ag es , al l i n S pa ni sh , fro m

a co m pa ny call edPau te faci l.co m , as wel l as a “ de sc rip ti ve co m m en ta ry ” o n t he ex hi bi ts . In p artof h is co m m en ta ry , Henr ique z st at edth atth e Pau te faci l web pa ge s ex pl ai ne d h ow t he de fen da nt s o bt ai ne d t he adve rti si ng cu st om ers th atadve rti se d o n t he de fen da nt s’ on li ne ne wsp ap ers . He st at edth at Pau te faci l “ ge ts th e [cu st om ers ]” and“pr ov id es th e cu st om er[s ]” to t he

The de fenda

nts did not obj ect to the a uthenticity

of the e x hibits i n the district court, a nd, 3 there fore , we c onsider them par t of the re cord on a

ppeal. All of the def

endants’ w eb pag es in the exhibit s, and most of the adve rtisements on those 4 web pa g es, appe ar in the Spanish languag e. 5

Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 5 of 14ne wsp ap ers , andth at“ [a]ny ti m e p eo pl e in US an d Geo rg iacli ckin th ei r

co m pu te rs to acce ss servi ce o f pu rch as e g oo ds as r es ul t o f Pau te faci l.co m sp on so rin g Def

en dant s, Paut efac il .co m

m ak es m on ey

an d Def en da nt s t oo .” Afte r subm it ti ng th e ex hi bi ts , Henr ique z m ov edto am en d h is co m pl ai nt , in di cat in g tha t tho se ex hi bi ts supp orte d p ers on al juri sd ic ti on . In h is pro po se d am en de d c om

pl ai nt , Henr ique z al le ge d t ha t p ers on al juri sd ic ti on ex is te d u nd er Geo rg ia ’s lo ng -arm

st atut e b ecau se , by ta rg et in g Hen rique z an d h is fam il y , th e de fen da nt s p ur

po se fu ll y di rect edth e d efam at ory

publ ic at io ns at Geo rg ia . Acco rd in g t o Hen rique z, th e d efen da nt s p ub li sh edon li ne adve rti se m en ts th at of fere d g oo ds an d s erv ic es of c om pa ni es op erat in g i n Geo rg ia , andth e d efen da nt s th ereb y de riv ed“ go odrev enue .” He all eg edth atth e ad ve rti se m en ts co nt ai ne d li nk s t o the co m

pani es ’ Geo rg ialo cat io ns an d t ha t o ne of t he co m pa ni es adve rti se d o n t he de fen da nt s’ webs it e was ba se d i n Geo rg ia . Alt ern at iv el y , Henr ique z al le ge d t ha t the di st ric t co urt co ul d e xe rci se pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on un de r th e fed eral lo ng -arm st atut e, Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 4 (k ), be cau se hi s cl ai m s ar os e u nd er fe de ral law. The de fen da nt s re sp on de d t ha t Hen rique z’s am en de d c om pl ai ntdi d n ot supp ort p ers on al juri sd ic ti on . The d efen da nt s p oi nt edou t tha t the adve rti se m en ts subm it te d b y

Henr ique z were p la cedonth e d efen da nt s’ webs it es by an “ adserve r” 6 Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 6 of 14own edan d o pe rat edby Paut efac il .co m , a Co lo m bi anadve rti si ng co m

pa ny. Bec au se Henr ique z li ve d i n Geo rg ia , th e ad ve rti se m en ts he saw wer e se le ct edby Pau te faci l t o s ho wcas e g oo ds an d s erv ic es av ai labl e in Geor gi a. The d efen da nt s st at edth atEl Pai s’s web si te s d idno t m ark etth ei r own go od s, b utwere p as si ve web si te s t ha t d is se m in at edne ws s to rie s. The di stric t co urt g ran te d the de fen dant s’ m ot io n a nddi sm is se d t he laws ui t, co nc lu di ng th atHenr ique z’s al le ga ti on s wer e in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li shpe rs on al juri sd ic ti on un de r subs ect io ns (1) an d (3 ) of Geor gi a’s lo ng -arm

st atut e. The di st ric t co urt n ot edth atitha d c on si de redth e ad di ti on al factua l al le ga ti on s ra is ed in Henr ique z’s am en de d c om pl ai nt , bu t s ta te d t ha t tho se all eg at io ns di d n otalt er th e co urt’s co nc lu si on th atpe rs on al juri sd ic ti on was l ack in g. Th e d is tri ctco urt de ni edas m oo t s ev eral of He nr ique z’s pe nd in g m ot io ns , in cl ud in g h is m ot io n t o am en d t he co m

pl ai nt , hi s m ot io n fo r a co nf eren ce u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 2 6( f), an d h is m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. II . DISCUSSI ON A. Pers on al Ju ri sd ic tio n 1. Fo ru m

Sta te ’s Lon g- Arm

Sta tu te W e ap pl y a two -s te p i nqui ry

in de te rm in in g wh ethe r pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ex is ts ov er a n on res id en t d efen da nt . Diam on d C ry st al Bran ds , Inc . v. Fo od

7 Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 7 of 14Mo ve rs Int ’l, Inc., 5 93 F.3d12 49 , 12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Firs t, we ex am in e 5 whe th er the ex erci se of ju ris di ct io n i s ap pr op ria te un de r th e fo ru m st at e’s lo ng -arm st atut e, an d, s eco nd , whet he r th e ex erci se of juris di ct io n v io la te s t he Due Pro ces s C laus e o f th e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t t o the Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n. Id . at12 57 -5 8. Th is Co urt h as co nc lu de d t ha t Geo rg ia ’s lo ng -arm st atut e “ do es no t g ran t co urts inGeor gi a p ers on al juri sd ic ti onth atis co ex te ns iv e wit h pr oc edur al du e p ro ces s,” b utin st ead“ im po se s i nd ep en de ntob li ga ti on s t ha t a pl ai nt iff m us t es tabl is h fo r th e ex erci se of p ers on al juri sd ic ti on th atare d is ti nc t fro m th e d em an ds of p ro cedur al du e p ro ces s.” Id . at 1 25 9. “ [W] e m us t i nt erp ret an d app ly G eo rg ia ’s lo ng -arm st atut e inth e sa m e way

as wo ul d t he Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt.” Id . at 1 25 8. The t wo p ro vi si on s o f Geo rg ia ’s lo ng -arm st atut e in Ga. Cod e. Ann . § 9 -1 0- 91 at i ss ue he re ar e subs ect io ns (1) an d (3 ), whi ch pro vi de : A cou rt o f th is st at e m ay

ex erci se pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er an y no nr es id en t . . . , as t o acau se of a ct io n a ris in g fr om an y of t he act s . . . enu m erat edin th is Co de sec ti on , inth e sa m e m an ne r as if h e orsh e were ares id en t o f th is st at e, if in pe rs on or t hr ou gh anag en t, he or s he :

We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of persona l 5 jurisdiction. Horizon Aggressive Growth, L .P. v. Rothstein-Kass, P.A., 421 F .3d 1162, 1166 (11th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff who se eks the e x erc ise of per sonal jurisdiction over a non- resident defe ndant “be ars the initial burde n of alleg ing in the c omplaint sufficient fa cts to make out a prima fa cie c ase of

jurisdiction.” Diamond Cry stal Br ands, Inc. v. F ood Movers Int’l, Inc., 593 F.3d 1249, 1257 ( 11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). 8 Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 8 of 14(1 ) Tran sa ct s an y bu si ne ss withi n t hi s s ta te ;

. . . . (3 ) Co m m it s a t orti ou s i njury

in th is st at e cau se d b y

anactor om is si on ou ts id e th is st at e if th e to rt- feas orreg ul arl y

do es or s ol ic it s bu si ne ss , or e ng ag es inan y ot he r pe rs is te ntco ur se of c on du ct , or de riv es subs ta nt ia l re ve nu e fro m go od s u se d o r co ns um edor s erv ic es ren de redin th is st at e. Ga. Co de . Ann . § 9 -1 0- 91 (1 ), (3 ). 6 Und er Geo rg ialaw, the “ tra ns act s an y bu si ne ss ” p ro vi si on in § 9 -1 0- 91 (1 ) gr an ts pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er a n on -res id en t d efen da ntif “ (1 ) th e n on res id en t de fen da ntha s p ur

po se fu ll y do ne so m e actor c on su m m at edso m e tr an sa ct io n i n [Geo rg ia ], (2) if t he cau se of a ct io n a ris es fro m or i s co nn ect edwith s uc h a ctor tra ns act io n, an d (3 ) if

th e ex erci se of ju ris di ct io n b y th e co urts of thi s s ta te do es no t o ffen d t rad it io na l fa irn es s an d s ub st an ti al jus ti ce.” Aero Toy St or e, LLC v. Grie ve s, 6 31 S.E.2d73 4, 7 37 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 06 ). Here, Hen rique z h as fai le d t o es tabl is h t he sec on d p ro ng be cau se hi s co m pl ai nt s h av e n otall eg ed , andhi s ex hi bi ts do no t s ho w, th athi s caus e o f act io n fo r de fam at io n aro se ou t o f, or was co nn ect edto , any bu si ne ss tra ns act io n i n Geo rg ia . Henri qu ez’s d efam at io n c la im s aro se ou t o f th e d efen da nt s’ publ ic at io n o f de fam at ory ne ws arti cl es on th ei r web si te s, n otth e d efen da nt s’ pl acement o f ad ve rti se m en ts fro m U.S. com pa ni es The long -ar

m statute contains four othe r conditions under which a c ourt may exercise 6 persona l jurisdiction over a non-r esident, but none of the other c onditions applies to thi s case . See Ga . Code. Ann. § 9-10- 91. A plaintiff may establish persona l jurisdiction by showingthe exis tence of any

one condition. See id. 9 Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 9 of 14on th ei r web si te s. Thus , th e d is tri ctco urt co ul d n otex erci se pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on

un de r subs ect io n (1 ) of

Geor gi a’s lo ng -arm

st atut e, se e id ., andwe are l eftto de ci de whet he r juri sd ic ti on ex is te d u nd er s ub se ct io n (3 ). To es tabl is h ju ris di ct io n u nd er § 9-1 0- 91 (3 ), Hen rique z h adto sh ow, am on g ot he r th in gs , th atth e d efen da nt s “ reg ul arl y ” co nduc te d o r so li ci te d b us in es s i n Geo rg ia , or d eri ve d “ subs ta nt ia l re ve nu e fro m go od s u se d o r co ns um edor s erv ic es ren de red ” in Geor gi a. See Ga. Co de . Ann . § 9 -1 0- 91 (3 ). Acco rd in g t o Hen rique z’s al le ga ti on s an d e ve n t he ev id en ce h e subm it te d, t he de fen da nt s wer e res id en ts of C ol om

bi a an d o pe rat edth ei r bu si ne ss in Co lo m bi a. Thei r on ly al le ge d c on ta ctwith Geo rg iaco ns is te d o f di sp la y in g a dv ert is em en ts of v ari ou s co m pa ni es on th ei r In te rn etwebs it es , in cl ud in g a dv ert is em en ts of aco m pa ny ba se d i n Geo rg ia . There is no all eg at io n, m uc h l es s ev id en ce, tha t the de fen da nt s se cu redth es e adve rti se m en ts di rect ly from co m pa ni es in Geor gi a o r th ro ug h a ny co nt act(te le ph on e cal l, l et te r, oran y type o f co m

m un ic at io n) with a ny com

pa ny in Geo rg ia . Ju stth e o pp os it e, th e d efen da nt s o bt ai ne d the adve rti se m en ts fro m Pau te faci l.co m , a Co lo m

bi anadserve r oradve rti si ng co m pa ny. The factth ata pa rti cu la r web si te di sp lay s an adve rti se m en t tha t i s v ie wab le in Geor gi a o r sh ows a co m pa ny tha t d oe s b us in es s i n Geo rg iado es no t, b y it se lf, m eanth atth e web si te own er h adan y

co nt actwith Geo rg ia . Thu s, Hen rique z h as fai le d t o a ll eg e o r sh ow th atth e d efen dant s ac tu al ly con du ct edor s ol ic it edbu si ne ss in Geor gi a, m uc h l es s 10 Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 10 of 14on a reg ul ar b as is , or tha t the y de riv edsubs ta nt ia l re ve nu e fro m go od s u se d o r se rv ic es ren de redinGeor gi a. See Sm it h v . Air Am bu la nc e Network, 4 27 S.E.2d 30 5, 3 05 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 93 ) (s ta ti ng th at“ m ere p la cem en t o f ad ve rti se m en ts in Geo rg ia ” was in su ffi ci en t t o s ho w th ata de fen da ntpu rp os efu ll y trans act ed bu si ne ss in th e st at e, su chas t o e st ab li sh pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ). Acco rd in gl y , § 9 -1 0- 91 (3 ) di d n otau th or iz e p ers on al juri sd ic ti on ov er the de fen da nt s. Be cau se Hen rique z fai le d t o d em on st rat e juri sd ic ti on un de r Geo rg ia ’s lo ng -arm st atut e, we ne edno t d eci de whet he r juri sd ic ti on was p ro pe r un de r th e Due Pro ces s C laus e. See Di am on d C ry st al Bran ds , Inc ., 59 3 F .3dat 1 25 7- 58 . 2. Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 4 (k )(2 ) Hen rique z co nt en ds th atpe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ex is te d u nd er Ru le 4(k )(2 ), th e “ na ti on al lo ng -arm

st atut e.” See Co ns ol . Dev. Co rp . v. Sh erri tt , Inc ., 21 6 F .3d 12 86 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Und er Ru le 4(k )(2 ), whe n ade fen da ntis no t s ub ject to th e juri sd ic ti on of a ny on e st at e, a co urt m ay “ ag gr eg at e a fo rei gn de fen da nt ’s na ti on wid e co nt act s t o a ll ow fo r se rv ic e o f pr oc es s p ro vi de d t ha t two co nd it io ns are m et : (1 ) pl ai nt iff

's c la im s m

us t ar is e u nd er fe de ral law; an d, (2 ) th e ex erci se of juri sd ic ti on m

us t b e co ns is te ntwith t he Co ns ti tu ti on an d l aws of t he Uni te d St at es .” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ; s ee Fe d. R. C iv . P. 4(k )(2 ). Becaus e Hen rique z’s cl ai m s o f de fam at io n a ro se un de r st at e la w, no t fe de ral law, the di st ric t co urt co ul d n otex erci se juri sd ic ti on un de r Ru le 4(k )(2 ). 11 Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 11 of 14W e rec og ni ze tha t, i n h is pro po se d a m en de d c om pl ai nt , Henr ique z m en ti on edth athi s ac ti on aro se un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 a ndth atth e d efen da nt s vi ol at edhi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto pri va cy . Howev er, § 19 83 gra nt s a c au se of act io n o nl y

ag ai ns t p ers on s wh o a ct ed“un de r th e co lo r of st at e la w.” Lore n v . Sas se r, 30 9 F .3d12 96 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Sim il arl y , th e co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto pr iv acy “res tri ct s t he Gov ern m en t’s p owe r to reg ul at e o r in tru de on act iv it y in vo lv in g fu nd am en ta l ri gh ts .” Garci a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 6 66 F.2d96 0, 9 65 (11 th Ci r. 19 82 ) (em

ph as is ad de d) ; s ee al so Lug ar v . Edm on ds onOil Co ., Inc ., 45 7 U.S. 92 2, 9 36 , 10 2 S . Ct. 2 74 4, 2 75 3 (1 98 2) (“ [M]os t ri gh ts sec ur edby the Co ns ti tu ti on are p ro te ct edon ly agai ns t i nf rin ge m en t b y

go ve rn m en ts .” (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) ). Becaus e Hen rique z h as no t al le ge d a ny dep riv at io n o f ri gh ts by, orwith th e h el p o f, th e st at e o r fed eral go ve rn m en t, h is cla im s d o n otari se un de r § 1 98 3 orth e Co ns ti tu ti on , th ereb y pre cl ud in g p ers on al juri sd ic ti onun de r th e n at io na l lo ng -arm st atut e. See Fe d. R. C iv . P. 4(k )(2 ). 7 B. Ju ri sd ic tio na l Di sc ov ery W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f di sc ov ery fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n.
For the first time on appe al, Henriquez argues that his claims also ar ose under the 7 International Covenant on Civil and Pol itical Rights (“ I CCP R”). Howe ver, w e do not re view issues raised f

or the fir st tim e on appe al except in five situations, none of whic h applies her e. See Hig g inbottom v. C arte r, 223 F .3d 1259, 1260 (11th Cir. 2000); see a lso Acce ss Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1332 (11th Cir. 2004) (listingthe five c ircumstance s in which we will hea

r cla ims raised for

the first time on appe al).

12 Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 12 of 14Whi te v. Co ca-C ol a Co ., 54 2 F .3d84 8, 8 53 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). “ [T]he p la in ti ff

sh ou ldbe gi ve n t he op po rtu ni ty to d is co ve r fac ts th atwou ldsupp ort h is al le ga ti on s o f juri sd ic ti on .” Majd -Po urv. Geo rg ia naCmty. Hos p., In c., 72 4 F .2d 90 1, 9 03 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). Howev er, a d is tri ctco urt d oe s n otab us e it s d is cret io n in di sm is si ng th e p la in ti ff’s act io n fo r la ckof p ers on al juri sd ic ti on , eve n b efo re juri sd ic ti on al di sc ov ery oc cu rs , when th e p la in ti ff h as no t d il ig en tl y pu rs ue d s uc h di sc ov ery de sp it e th e o pp ortu ni ty to d o s o. Se e Uni te d Tec hn ol og ie s C or p. v . Maz er, 5 56 F.3d12 60 , 12 80 -8 1 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 9) (affi rm in g t he di st ric t co urt’s di sm is sa l o f pl ai nt iff’s cla im s fo r la ckof p ers on al juri sd ic ti on be fo re the pl ai nt iff s co nduc te d ju ris di ct io na l d is co ve ry ). Ind eed , inMaz er, we rea so ne d t ha t, al th ou gh th e p la in ti ff rec og ni zedth e n eedforjuri sd ic ti on al di sc ov ery, th e p la in ti ff n ev er fo rm al ly m ov edforsu ch di sc ov ery an d fa il edto tak e rea so nabl e st ep s i n s eek in g di sc ov ery du rin g the m or e th anfou r m on th s t ha t the de fen da nt ’s di sm is sa l m ot io n was pe nd in g. Id . Inth is cas e, Hen rique z was cert ai nl y aware o f th e n eedforjuri sd ic ti on al di sc ov ery, an d, i n fa ct , subm it te d n um ero us ex hi bi ts to supp ort h is all eg at io n t ha t pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on was p ro pe r. Howev er, Hen rique z n ev er fo rm al ly m ov edfor an y ad di ti on al juri sd ic ti on al di sc ov ery an d d idno t at te m ptto see k s uc h d is co ve ry , ev enth ou gh ne arl y

si x m on th s p as se d b etweenth e d efen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s

13 Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 13 of 14an d t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er o f di sm is sa l. Acco rd in gl y , we can no t s ay th atth e 8 di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d is m is si ng Henr ique z’s co m pl ai ntbe fo re h e co ul d c on du ctany

ad di ti on al di sc ov ery. See Ma zer, 5 56 F.3dat 1 28 0- 81 . In l ig ht of th e fo reg oi ng , we affi rm . 9 AFFIRMED.

Henriquez did file a “motion to compel disclosure” of docume nts, namely , copies of 8 cer tain pag es of the de fenda

nts’ newspa

per, but this reque st appea rs to have c oncer

ned the merits of He nriquez’s defa

mation claims rather

than jurisdiction. Henriquez’s brief r aises two additional cla ims, namely , that the district court (1) err ed in 9 denying his motion for a

confe renc e under

Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 26(f ), and ( 2) er

red in denying his motion for summary judgme nt. These a

rguments warr ant little discussion, however. Be cause the district court prope rly dismiss ed He nriquez’s complaint for la ck of pe rsonal jurisdiction, the court did not err in denying theabove motions as moot.

14 Case: 12-11428 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 14 of 14