FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 15 39 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 23 06 7- CV-J LK FAITH GORDON, on be ha lf o f he rs el f an d a ll ot he rs si m il arl y

si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 28 , 20 11 ) Befo re MAR CUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andMILLS, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * MARC US, Cir cu itJu dg e:
Honora ble Richard Mills, United States District J udg e for the Central District of I llinois , * sitti ngby designation.Bran ch Ban ki ng an d Tru st(“ BB& T”) ap pe al s the de ni al of i ts m ot io n t o

co m pe l Fa ith Go rd on to arb it rat e h er co ns um er co m pl ai nt . The d is tri ctco urt ru le d th atth e arb it rat io n p ro vi si on inGord on ’s con tra ctwas u ne nf or ceab le be cau se th e arb it rat io n p ro vi si on ’s no n- se ve rab le waiv er o f th e ri gh t t o acla ss act io n was
subs ta nt iv el y

un co ns ci on ab le un de r Geo rg ialaw. Aft er tho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm . I. In20 08 , Gord on op en eda co ns um er ch eck in g a cco un t wi th BB&T. Th e Ban k S erv ic es Agre em en t b etweenGord on an d B B&T i nc lu de s an arb it rat io n pr ov is io n t ha t ap pl ie s t o “ [a]ny cl ai m or d is pu te ” b etweenth e p art ie s. Th e arb it rat io n a gr eem en t em po wers th e arb it rat orto “ awardall av ai labl e rem ed ie s,” in cl ud in g “ at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts .” It a ls o i nc lu de s a c la ss act io n wai ve r; b y si gn in g t he ag reem en t, Go rd on ag reedto waiv e h er ri gh t t o p art ic ip at e in a cl as s act io n l aws ui t o r cl as s ac ti on arb it rat io n. Th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er i s n on se ve rab le ; the arb it rat io n a gr eem en t p ro vi de s t ha t “ if the li m it at io ns on cla ss act io ns are s tru ckina pr oc eed in g b ro ug hton a cl as s, re pr es en ta ti ve or p riv at e at to rn ey ge ne ral ba si s, . . . th is en ti re arb it rat io n p ro vi si on . . . sh al l b e nul l an d
vo idinsu ch pro ceed in g.”
2InMay 200 9, Go rd on fil eda pu ta ti ve cla ss act io n c om pl ai ntinGeor gi a st at e co urt. Go rd on ’s com pl ai ntall eg es th atBB&T ro ut in el y po st s ch arg es in cu rredto co ns um ers ’ acco un ts inord er fro m lar ge stto sm al le stam ou nt s, ev en whe n the lar ge r ch arg es oc cu r da y s af te r th e smalle r ch arg es . It cl ai m s t ha t thi s po li cy ne ces sa ril y

res ul ts inth e u nf

ai r as se ss m en t o f ex ces si ve ov erdraftch arg es . The co m pl ai ntass ert s cl ai m s fo r br each of c on tra ct , con ve rs io n, u nc on sc io nabi li ty,
an d u nju sten ric hm en t o n b eh al f of Gord on an d a ll BB&T ac co un t h ol de rs “ who in cu rredanov erdraftch arg e d es pi te th ei r acc ou ntha vi ng a su ffi ci en t b al an ce o f actua l fu nd s t o c ov er al l d eb it s t ha t h av e b een subm it te d t o t he ba nkfor pa ym en t”
or“ who in cu rredon e o r m or e o ve rdraftch arg es ba se d o n B B&T's reo rd eri ng of ch arg es .” InJu ne 20 09 , BB&T re m ov edth e cas e to th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a u nd er the Cla ss Acti onFai rn es s Act , 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2( d) (2 ), an d m ov edto co m pe l Go rd onto arb it rat e h er d is pu te onan in di vi du al ba si s p ur su an t t o t he Ban k S erv ic es Agre em en t. Go rd onres is te d arb it rat io n o n t he gro un d t ha t the cla ss act io n wai ve r was subs ta nt iv el y
un co ns ci on ab le un de r Geo rg ialaw, an d t he refo re the arb itrat io n p ro vi si on as a who le was u ne nf

or ceab le . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d B B&T’s m ot io n t o c om pe l arb it rat io n, ru li ng th atth e cl as s ac ti onwaiv er i n Go rd on ’s arb it rat io n a gr eem en t 3was un co ns ci on ab le ba se d o n t hi s C ou rt’s d eci si on inDale v. Co m cas t Co rp ., 49 8

F.3 d 1 21 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7)
. Thi s ca se was t he n t ran sf erre d t o t he So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a an d
co ns ol id at edby the Ju di ci al Pan el on Mu lt i-Di st ric t Li ti ga ti on with o th er l aws ui ts ch al le ng in g v ari ou s b an ks ’ as se ss m en ts of o ve rdraftch arg es . Fol lo win g t he tra ns fer, BB &T m ov edth e Fl or id a d is tri ctco urt fo r rec on si de rat io n o f th e o rd er is su edby the Geor gi a d is tri ctco urt d en y in g i ts m ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on . BB& T’ s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n was de ni ed . Now BB& T app eal s t he de ni al of it s m ot io n t o c om

pe l arbi tra ti on an d t he de ni al of i ts m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n.

II. The Fed eral Arbi tra ti on Act p ro vi de s t ha t b in di ng arb it rat io n c laus es are
en fo rceabl e, “ sa ve up on su chgro un ds as e xi stat l aw orinequi ty for the
rev oc at io n o f an y

co nt ract .” 9 U.S.C. § 2. “ [G]enera ll y ap pl ic ab le co nt ract de fen se s, s uc h a s fr au d, dur es s, o r un co ns ci on ab il ity , m ay be ap pl ie d t o i nv al id at e arb it rat io n a gr eem en ts witho utco nt rav en in g [9 U.S.C.] § 2 .” Doct or ’s Ass oc s., In c. v. Ca sa ro tt o, 5 17 U.S. 68 1, 6 87 (19 96 ). W e lo okto st at e co nt ractlaw t o de te rm in e whe th er an arb itrat io n p ro vi si on is un co ns ci on ab le an d t he refo re
un en fo rceabl e. See Dal e, 49 8 F .3dat 1 21 9 n .2; Bes s v . Che ckExp res s, 2 94 F.3d 12 98 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (“ The FAA all ows st at e la w to in va li da te an 4arb it rat io n a gr eem en t, p ro vi de d t he law atis su e g ov ern s co nt ract s g en eral ly and

no t arbi tra ti on ag reem en ts sp eci fic al ly.”). Geo rg ialaw re co gn iz es bo th pro cedur al un co ns ci on ab il it y an d s ub st an ti ve
un co ns ci on ab il it y . See NEC Tech s., In c. v. Nel so n, 4 78 S.E.2d76 9, 7 71 (Ga. 19 96 ). “ Pro cedur al un co ns ci on ab il it y ad dr es se s t he pro ces s o f m ak in g t he
co nt ract , whi le subs ta nt iv e u nc on sc io nabi li ty loo ks to th e co nt ractua l t erm s th em se lv es .” Id . Here, we co ns id er the cla im th atth e cl as s ac ti on waiv er i s
subs ta nt iv el y

un co ns ci on ab le -- th atis , “ ‘whe th er, i n t he li gh t o f th e g en eral
co m m erci al ba ck gr ou ndan d t he co m m erci al ne ed s o f th e p art ic ul ar trad e o r cas e, th e cl au se s i nv ol ve d are s o o ne -s id edas t o b e u nc on sc io nabl e u nd er the ci rcu m st an ces ex is ti ng at t he ti m e o f th e m ak in g o f th e co nt ract .’ ” Id
. (quo ti ng U.C.C. § 2 -3 02 cmt. 1 ). W e are aware o f no op in io ns of t he Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt o r Geo rg ia ’s ap pe ll at e co urts ad dr es si ng th e en fo rceabi li ty of a cl as s ac ti on waiv er. Thi s C ou rt ha s ap pl ie d Geo rg ialaw i n a dd res si ng th is is su e o n afew o ccas io ns bu t h as no t ad op te d abri gh t-l in e ru le . W e h av e uph el d c la ss act io n wai ve rs inso m e co nt ex ts , se e, e.g ., Cal ey

v. Gu lfs tre am

Aero sp ace C or

p., 4 28 F.3d13 59 , 13 77 -7 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ); J en ki ns v. Fi rs t Am . Cas h Ad vanc e o f Ga., LLC, 40 0 F .3d86 8, 8 78 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) , andha ve he ldsu chwaiv ers to be subs ta nt iv el y un co ns ci on ab le
5in ot he r co nt ex ts . See Dal e, 49 8 F .3dat 1 22 4; Jo ne s v . Direc TV, Inc., 3 81 F.

App ’x 89 5, 8 97 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (u np ub li sh ed ). In Dal e, we ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ th e
en fo rceabi li ty of a p art ic ul ar cl as s ac ti on waiv er i n a n a rb it rat io n a gr eem en t m us t be de te rm in edon a cas e-b y -cas e b as is , con si de rin g t he to ta li ty of th e fac ts an d ci rcu m st an ces .” 49 8 F .3dat 1 22 4. We lis te d ci rcu m st an ces th atm ay be rel ev an t in an y gi ve n c as e, in cl ud in g: th e fai rn es s o f th e p ro vi si on s, the co stto anin di vi du al pl ai nt iff of vi nd ic at in g t he cla im

when co m

pa redto th e p la in ti ff’s p ot en ti al reco ve ry , th e ab il it y

to reco ve r at to rn ey s’ fees an d o th er co st s an d th us ob ta in leg al rep res en ta ti on to pro se cu te th e u nd erl y in g c la im , th e pr act ic al [e]ffectth e wai ve r wil l h av e o n aco m pa ny’ s ab il it y

to en ga ge inun ch eck edm ark etbe ha vi or , andrel at edpo li cy co nc ern s. Id
. The fact s an d c irc um st an ces of t hi s ca se lea d u s t o c on cl ud e th atth e cl as s act io n wai ve r is un co ns ci on ab le . Gord on bri ng s a c on su m er ac ti on ch al le ng in g BB& T’ s as se ss m en t o f ov erdraftfees . Whi le th e p art ie s d is pu te th e to ta l am ou nt of Gord on ’s po te nt ia l re co ve ry , itis un di sp ut edth ateach ov erdraftfee i s $ 35
. 1 Gor do n’s an ti ci pa te d re co ve ry -- $ 35 m ul ti pl ie d b y

th e num be r of ti m es th e fee s
BB &T asser

ts that Gordon overdr ew her acc ount on fifty -nine separ ate occa sions resulting 1 in overdraf

t fee s of $2,285 (although we note that $35 multipl ied by fifty -nine equals $2,065). Gordon counters that s he does not contest the p ro p ri ety of at least som e of the overdraf t charg es. She there fore argues t h at h er p o t ential rec overy is considera bly less than $2,285. We need not deter mine th e prec ise amount in controve rsy in this case . Even if the value of Gordon’s claim is $2,285, the costs of arbitration -- attorney s’ fee s in particula r -- would likely far exceed her potential rec overy . 6were i m

pr op erl y ch arg edto he r acc ou nt-- wou ldbe ex ceed edby atto rn ey s’ fees
an d o th er co st s as so ci at edwith i nd iv idua l arbi tra ti on . Mos t s ig ni fic an tl y , if Gor do n s uc ces sf

ul ly pro se cu te s h er cl ai m s, we cann otsay it i s ce rta in , or e ve n li ke ly, th atsh e wou ldbe award edex pe ns es inanam ou ntsu ffi ci en t t o re co up th e
co st s o f arb it rat io n. Geo rg ialaw p erm it s, wi th in th e d is cret io n o f th e fac t-f in de r,
anawardof a tt orne y s’ fees an d c os ts “ whe re the de fen da ntha s ac te d i n b adfai th , ha s b eenstub bo rn ly lit ig io us , or h as cau se d the pl ai nt iff un ne ces sa ry

tro ub le an d
ex pe ns e.” Ga. Co de Ann . § 1 3- 6- 11 . W e h el d i n Dal e th atth e p reca to ry na tu re o f at to rn ey s’ fees un de r Ga. Co de Ann . § 1 3- 6- 11 “ do es no t p ro vi de th e sa m e in cen ti ve foranatt orne y

to rep res en t an in di vi du al pl ai nt iff as t he au to m at ic , or li ke ly, awardof f

ees an d c os ts av ai labl e to a pr ev ai li ng pl ai nt iff ” und er s ta tu te s th atm an da te anawardof a tt orne y s’ fees . 49 8 F .3dat 1 22 3 (d is ti ng ui sh in g Je nk in s an d C al ey

on th is ba si s) . Accor di ng ly, we co nc lu de th atGord onwou ld pr ob ab ly be unabl e to sec ur e ad equa te rep res en ta ti on to pro se cu te he r cl ai m s wer e th e cl as s ac ti onwaiv er t o b e en fo rced
. 2
Gordon’s complaint states a claim for conver sion, which, as an intentional tor t, “ invokes 2 a specie s of bad faith that entitles a person wrong ed to rec over the expenses of litigation.” DeKa lb Cnty
. v. McF arla

nd, 203 S.E.2d 495, 499 (Ga
. 1974). BB &T claims that Gordon’s greater likelihood of obtaining attorney s’ fee s under the intentional tort claim distinguishes this c ase from Dale. But BB &T cannot g et around the fac t that Ga. Code Ann. § 13-6-11 is permissive; it leave s to the sound discretion of the fac t-finder whether to awa rd fee s and expenses, even wher e a plaintiff succe eds in prosec uting a claim for an intentional tort. See, e.g ., Multim edia Tec hs., Inc. v. Wil ding, 586 S.E.2d 74, 80 (Ga
. Ct. App. 2003) (dec lini n g t o m andate an awa rd of attorneys’ fee s afte r succe ssful 7BB& T arg ue s n ev erthe le ss th ata pr ov is io n i n t he co nt ractpe rm it ti ng a pa rty

to bri ng anact io n i n s m al l-c la im s co urt as analt ern at iv e to arb it rat io n p ro vi de s an ad equa te av enue forco ns um ers to adva nc e th ei r cl ai m s wi th min im al ex pe ns e an d witho utth e ai d o f anatt orne y . W e ag ree t ha t i n s om e ci rcu m st an ces , th e smallcl ai m s fo ru m

wou ldbe a vi ab le op ti onforco ns um ers see ki ng to bri ng cla im s t ha t a la y pe rs on m ay

reas on ab ly be ex pe ct edto pu rs ue witho utth e as si st an ce o f an at to rn ey . Gord on ’s cla im s, h owe ve r, are p la in ly notof t he ki ndth atco ul d b e effe ct iv el y

pro se cu te d wi th ou t the be ne fitof a tt orne y ass is ta nc e. The h eartof Gor do n’s Co m

pl ai ntis th atBB&T “ ro ut in el y en fo rces a po li cy

wher eb y ch arg es in cu rredare p os te d t o c on su m ers ’ acco un ts inord er o f la rg es t t o s m al le stam ou nt s,
ev enwhenlar ge r ch arg es oc cu r da y s af te r sm al le r ch arg es .” The B an k S erv ic es Agr eem en t s ta te s t ha t BB &T “ m ay pro ces s i te m s fo r pa ym en t” ag ai ns t a
cu st om er’s acc ou nt“ in an y ord er tha t [i t] cho os e[s ]. ” The Ban k S erv ic es Agr eem en t fu rth er caut io ns th e cu st om er tha t “ [t]hi s m etho d . . . co ul d re su ltin ad di ti on al ov erdraft s” on th e cu st om er’s acc ou nt . Reco gn iz in g t hi s co nt ractua l la ng ua ge , Gord on st at es inhe r Co m pl ai ntth at“ [e]venif Pl ai nt iff was g iv en
m at eri al s co nt ai ni ng lan gu ag e th atco ul d p os si bl y be in te rp ret edto auth or iz e o r di sc lo se BB&T’s p ract ic es as d es cri be d abo ve , any suc h n ot ic e o r au th or iz at io n
prosec ution of a conve rsion claim). 8was in ad equa te an d i ne ffec ti ve . Furt he rm or e, BB& T’ s re se rv at io n o f di sc ret io n t o

reo rd er tran sa ct io ns an d a ss es s o ve rdraftfees is co ns tra in edby its ob li ga ti on to de al fai rly andingo odfai th .” It i s cl ear t ha t i n o rd er t o s uc ceedinhe r cl ai m , Gor do n m

us t es tabl is h t ha t n otwiths ta nd in g the co nt ractua l l an gu ag e, BB& T’ s pr act ic e v io la te s Geo rg ialaw re ga rd in g t he ob li ga ti onto de al fai rly andingo od fai th , whi ch un de ni ab ly requ ire s l eg al ex pe rti se an d a n u nd ers ta nd in g o f bo th th e Uni fo rm Co m m erci al Co de an d Geo rg iaco m m on law. See Stu artEnt ers . Int ’l, In c. v. Pe yka n, In c., 55 5 S .E.2d88 1, 8 83 -8 4 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 2 00 1) (no ti ng th e im pl ie d c ov en an t o f go odfai th an d fa ir d eal in g “ m od ifi es th e m ean in g o f al l
ex pl ic itterm s i n aco nt ract ,” an d h as a ba si s i n b ot h s ta tu to ry an d c omm onlaw)
. 3 At o ral arg um en t, BB &T cl ai m edth atGord on wou ldha ve no di ffi cu lt y in
m ou nt in g t he factua l al le ga tane ed edto supp ort h er cl ai m s wi th ou t the ass is ta nc e of anatt orne y . Evenass um in g a rg ue nd o t ha t BB &T is co rrec t, h owe ve r, Gord on
wou ldst il l l ik el y

requi re an att orne y

to su cces sf

ul ly m ars ha l an d p ro se cu te th e
co m pl ex leg al arg um en ts su rro un di ng he r fac tu al sh owi ng s. Un de r th e p art ic ul ar ci rcu m st an ces inth is cas e, th e av ai labi li ty of th e small- cl ai m s fo rum do es no t ob vi at e o urco nc ernth aten fo rci ng th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er wo ul d i n e ffec t p rev en t

We emphasize that the merits of Gordon’s underly ing claims are n o t b ef

o re us, and we 3 offe r no opinion on their prope r re solution. 9co ns um ers li ke Gord on fro m ch al le ng in g t he pra ct ic es all eg edto be un la wfu l i n he r co m pl ai nt . III. Not ab ly, a p an el of t hi s C ou rt r ecen tl y up he lda cl as s ac ti on waiv er i n a
co ns um er ar

bi tra ti on ag reem en t i n C ap pu cci tt i v . Direc TV, Inc., 6 23 F.3d11 18 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . W e rei te rat edth atth e p ro pe r in qu iry un de r Geo rg ialaw i s whe th er the cla ss act io n wai ve r is un co ns ci on ab le “un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces
ex is ti ng at t he ti m e o f th e m ak in g o f th e co ntract .” Id . at 1 12 4 (quo ti ng NEC Tech s., 4 78 S.E.2dat 7 71 ). “ To an swe r th atqu es ti on th e d is tri ctco urt n eed edto
co ns id er al l o f th e rem ed ie s av ai labl e to Cap pu cci tt i u nd er Geo rg ialaw atth e
m om en t h e co nt ract edwith Di recTV.” Id . at 1 12 6. We con cl ud edth at Cap pu cci tt i h adanex ta ntst atut ory cla im un de r th e Geo rg iaFai r Bu si ne ss Prac ti ces Act (“ FBPA” ), Ga. Co de Ann . §§ 10 -1 -3 90 et s eq ., whi ch pro vi de s fo r at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts , an d t he refo re “ at to rn ey 's fe es an d l it ig at io n e xp en se s 4

Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-399( d) provides: 4 I f the court finds in any action that there has been a violation of [the FB PA] , the person injured by such violation shall, in addition to other relief provided for i n t his Code section and irrespe ctive of the amount in controve rsy , be awa rded rea sonable attorney s' fee s and expenses of litigation i n cu rred in connec tion with said action . . . .

10wou ld[ha ve ] be [en ] av ai labl e to hi m ” h adhe bu t p le ad edth e cl ai m . Cap pu cci tt i,

62 3 F .3dat 1 12 7. Inli gh t o f Cap pu cci tt i, BB &T no w arg ue s fo r th e fi rs t t im e in a no ti ce o f
supp le m en ta l au th or it y

th atGord on ha d apa lp ab le cla im un de r th e FBP A at t he ti m e sh e en te redin to a co nt ractwith B B&T, an d t ha t the m an da to ry awardof at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts in he ren t i n asu cces sf ul FBPA cl ai m

di st in gu is he s the ap pe al be fo re u s fr om

Dale . As BB& T con ced edat o ral arg um en t, i t n ev er ra is ed th is is su e in th e d is tri ctco urt o r in de edinit s i ni ti al or r ep ly brie fin g t o thi s C ou rt. BB& T rais es th e is su e a d ay lat e an d ado ll ar s ho rt. We hav e h el d rep eat ed ly tha t “ anis su e n otrai se d i n t he di stric t co urt an d ra is edforth e fi rs t t im e in anap pe al wil l n otbe co ns id eredby thi s co urt.” Acc es s No w, Inc . v. So uthwe st Airl in es Co ., 38 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 31 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (co ll ect in g c as es ) (quo ti ng W al ke r v. J on es , 10 F.3d15 69 , 15 72 (11 thCir . 19 94 ), cert . den ie d, 5 11 U.S. 11 11 (1 99 4) ). “ The reas on forth is pro hi bi ti on is pl ai n: as aco urt o f ap pe al s, we re vi ew

5

We rec ognize that this rule is “not a jurisdictional limit ation but mere ly a rule of prac tice.” 5 Dea n Wit ter Rey

nolds, Inc. v. F erna

ndez, 741 F.2d 355, 360 (11th Cir. 1984). We there fore have permitted the re solution of issues raised for the first time on appe al under five c ircumstance s: First, an appellate court will consider an issue not raised in the district court if it involves a pure question of law, and if ref usal to consider it would result in a m i s car

riag e of justice. Second, the rule may be relax ed wher e the appellant raises an objection to an order which he had no opportunity to raise at the district court level. Third, the rule d o es n o t bar consideration by the appellate court in the first instance wher e the interest of substantial justice is 11cl ai m s o f jud ic ia l erro r inth e tr ia l co urts .” Acces s No w, 38 5 F .3dat 1 33 1. Here ,

BB& T nev er g av e th e d is tri ctco urt the op po rtu ni ty to co ns id er wh ethe r Gor do n ha d apa lp ab le cla im

ari si ng un de r th e FBP A. Mor eo ve r, BB& T was o n n ot ic e ab ou t the po ss ib il it y

of r ai si ng th e is su e wel l b efo re we d eci de d C ap pu cci tt i. In de ed , a di st ric t co urt i n t he Nort he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a h adhe ldinWhi te v. W ach ov iaBan k, N.A., 56 3 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 35 8, 1 36 9 (N.D. Ga. 2 00 8) , th at
co ns um er ch eck in g a cco un t h ol de rs m ak in g s ub st an ti al ly sim il ar cl ai m s t o t ho se al le ge d b y

Gord on he re s uf

fic ie nt ly stat eda cl ai m

un de r th e FBP A forpu rp os es of
su rv iv in g am ot io n t o d is m is s. Bu t ev enif B B&T h adpro pe rly rais edit s ar gu m en t i n t he di st ric t co urt, i t
wou ldha ve ab an do ne d t he arg um en t b y fai li ng to bri ef i t o n app eal . “ Part ie s m us t
subm itall is su es on ap pe al inth ei r in it ia l b rie fs .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Nealy, 232 F.3d 82 5, 8 30 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ); F ed . R. App . P. 28 (a)( 5) ; 1 1t h C ir. R . 28 -1 (h ). A part y ab an do ns anarg um en t b y fai li ng to do so . See, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Cam pa , 52 9

at stake. Four

th, a fede ral appellate court is justified in resolving an issue not passed on below
. . . wher e t h e proper resolution is beyond any doubt. Finally , it may be appropriate to consider an issue first raised on appea l if that issue prese nts sign i fica

nt questions of g eneral impact or of great public conce rn. Acc ess Now, 385 F.3d at 1332 (quoting Dea n Wit ter Rey

nolds, 741 F.2d at 360-61 (footnotes and internal citations omitted)) (alter ation in orig inal). As we see i t , n one of these exceptional circ umstances a

re me t here
. 12F.3 d 9 80 , 98 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (arg um en ts no t m ad e in a pa rty’ s i ni ti al bri ef ar e

ab an do ne d) ; Gre enbr ia r, Ltd . v. Ci ty of Alaba st er, 8 81 F.2d15 70 , 15 73 n.6 (11 th Ci r. 19 89 ) (i ss ue is ab an do ne d o n app eal when ap pe ll an t “ el ab or at es no arg um en ts
on th e m eri ts as t o t h[ e] iss ue init s i ni ti al or r ep ly brie f”). A cl ai m th atha s b een ab an do ne d n eedno t b e ad dr es se d b y th is Co urt. See Acces s No w, 38 5 F .3dat 13 30 (ho ld in g t ha t wh ere a n i ss ue is ab an do ne d, thi s C ou rt “ do [es ] no t ad dr es s i ts
m eri ts ”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Jerni ga n, 3 41 F.3d12 73 , 12 83 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (“ Und er o urcas el aw, a pa rty seek in g t o ra is e a cl ai m or i ss ue on ap pe al m

us t pl ai nl y an d p ro m in en tl y

so in di cat e. Oth erwi se , th e is su e -- ev enif p ro pe rly pr es erv edat t ria l -- wil l b e co ns id eredab an do ne d.” ). “ Eva lu at in g a n i ss ue on th e
m eri ts th atha s n otbe enrai se d i n t he in it ia l b rie f wou ldun de rm in e th e v ery adve rs ari al na tu re o f ou r ap pe ll at e syst em ,” Acces s No w, 38 5 F .3dat 1 33 0, be cau se witho utful l b rie fin g, ev al ua ti on of the arg um en t’s m eri ts wou ld
un de rm in e ap pe ll an ts ’ ab il ity to co nt ro l the is su es rai se d a ndde pr iv e ap pe ll ees of th e o pp ortu ni ty to re sp on d a de qu at el y . Whe n n ew au th or ity

ari se s af te r a b rie f is fil edor a fte r or al arg um en t b ut be fo re a d eci si on , th e Fed eral Ru le s o f App el la te Pro cedur e p erm itpa rti es to
subm itsupp le m en ta l n ot ic e o f “pe rti ne ntan d s ig ni fic an t au th or it ie s” reg ard in g is su es alr eady

de ve lo pe d i n t he bri efs . Fed . R. App . P. 28 (j). ButRu le 28 (j) do es 13no t g ran t p art ie s a l ic en se to rai se who ll y ne w is su es , eve n wh enth e is su es ari se fro m in te rv en in g d ev el op m en ts inth e la w. See Mc Gin ni s v . Ing ram Equ ip . Co., 91 8 F .2d14 91 , 14 95 -9 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) (ho ld in g wai ve r ba rs co ns id erat io n o f

“ ne w arg um en ts an d i ss ue s n otpre se nt edun ti l a l at e st ag e o f th e p ro ceed in gs ,” as di st in gu is he d fr om

“ ne w law tha t co ul d b e ap pl ie d t o a rg um en ts alr eady de ve lo pe d” ). In s um , “pa rti es can no t p ro pe rly rais e n ew is su es at s up pl em en ta l br ie fin g.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Levy, 41 6 F .3d12 73 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ti ng Neal y , 23 2 F .3dat 8 30 ). Bec au se BB&T’s ar gu m en t tha t Go rd on co ul d h av e p le ad edanex tant st atut ory cla im pro vi di ng form an da to ry att orne y s’ fees is no t p ro pe rly befo re u s, we ha ve no oc cas io n t o e xam in e th e b read th or i m pa ctof C ap pu cci tt i. We
co nc ed e th atif t he arg um en t h adbe enpro pe rly rais ed , itwou ldbe a se rio us an d
subs ta nt ia l o ne . ButBB&T n ev er ra is editan d we are n otwil li ng to tak e itup
no w forth e fi rs t t im e. IV. Lik e th e d is tri ctco urt, we b el ie ve th aten fo rci ng th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er i n th is cas e wou ldpre ve ntco ns um er ch eck in g a cco un t h ol de rs li ke Gord onfro m ob ta in in g n eed edrep res en ta ti on to ch al le ng e p ract ic es by BB&T th atm ay be
un la wfu l. The refo re, we h ol d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de nyin g B B&T’s
14m ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on , andinde nyin g t he m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. Th e di st ric t co urts ’ or de rs are AFFIRMED
.

15