FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 19, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

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

Nos . 07 -1 49 66 & 0 7- 15 95 1 D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 02 89 7 C V-JOF -1 ADVENTU RE OUTDOORS, INC., a Geo rg iaCo rp or at io n, WALLACE AND WALLACE, INC., a Geo rg iaCo rp or at io n, etal., Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , ve rs us MIC HAEL BLOOMBERG, Mayor o f th e Ci ty of New York, i n Hi s Cap aci ty as Mayor o f New York C it y , and in di vi du al ly, NEW YORK CITY, a New YorkCo rp or at io n, etal, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a (Dece m be r 19 , 20 08 )Befo re DUBINA, HULL andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

DUBINA, Cir cu itJu dg e: Inth is st at e-l aw li be l an d n eg li ge nc e act io n, t he App el la nt s— of fic ia ls fro m New YorkCity

an d v ari ou s i nv es ti ga to rs hi redby the Cit y to co nduc t in ve st ig at io ns in Geor gi a—app eal th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er co nc lu di ng th at Geo rg iapri vi le ge law ap pl ie s t o t hi s ca se an d t ha t Geo rg ia ’s ant i-S LAPP (Strat eg ic Lawsu it s Ag ai ns t Publ ic Part ic ip at io n) st atut e d oe s n otap pl y in fed eral co urt. Bec au se we co nc lu de fro m th e rec or d t ha t thi s s ta te -la w to rt a ct io n d oe s n ot pr ov id e a s uf

fic ie ntba si s fo r th e ex erci se of f ed eral subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on , we do no t re ach th e is su es rai se d b y th e App el la nt s. We reve rs e th e d is tri ctco urt’s fin di ng of f

ed eral subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on an d re m an d t hi s ca se to th e d is tri ct co urt wi th in stru ct io ns th atth e d is tri ctco urt re m an d t hi s ca se to th e st at e co urt fro m whi ch itwas re m ov ed . I. BACKGROUND Thi s l aws ui t s te m s fr om

a wid e-re ach in g i nv es ti ga ti on of f ire arm s d eal ers co nduc te d b y

New YorkCit y

off ic ia ls co nc ern edab ou t the us e o f il le ga ll y pu rch as edfir earm s i n New Yo rk . Thes e o ffi ci al s b el ie ve d t ha t a h an df ul of g un de al ers were en ga gi ng in il le ga l p ract ic es , su chas kno win gl y pe rm it ti ng st raw pu rch as e tr an sa ct io ns , andth ata la rg e num be r of th e g un s p ur ch as edin th es e 2il le ga l tran sa ct io ns were tran sf erre d t o New Yo rkCit y . Stra w pu rch as e tra ns act io ns in vo lv e th e p ur ch as e o f a fi rearm by an in di vi du al leg al ly elig ib le to m ak e th e p ur ch as e (the st raw) wi th th e in te ntto imm ed ia te ly tran sf er the gu n t o an ot he r in di vi du al who is leg al ly ine li gi bl e to pu rch as e th e weap on (th e actua l pu rch as er). Inord er t o a sc ert ai n wh ethe r certa in gu n d eal ers were wi ll in g t o pa rti ci pa te in su ch il le ga l s al es , New Yorkoff ic ia ls hi redpri va te in ve st ig at or s t o si m ul at e straw p ur ch as es . On Ap ril 8, 2 00 6, t wo i nv es ti ga to rs hi redby the Cit y of Ne w York , on e m al e an d o ne fem al e, en te redAdv en tu re Ou td oo rs , a Geor gi a fi rearm s d eal er, an d si m ul at eda st raw p ur ch as e. The m al e in ve st ig at or co ns ul te d wi th anAdv en tu re Out do or s s al es pe rs on an d s el ect eda Glo ck9 mm ha nd gu n fo r pu rch as e. At tha t ti m e, th e m al e in ve st ig at orsu m m on edth e fem al e in ve st ig at or , who ha d n ot pa rti ci pa te d i n t he sel ect io n o f th e fi rearm , andsh e fi ll edou t the requi red pape rwo rk , in cl ud in g B ur eauof Al co ho l, To ba cco , Fire arm s, an d Ex pl os iv es (“ ATF”) Fo rm

44 73 . The s to re ra n aba ck gr ou ndch eckon th e fem al e in ve st ig at or , andth e tr an sa ct io n was co m pl et ed . Fo ll owi ng th ei r in ve st ig at io n, t he New YorkCit y off ic ia ls he lda pr es s co nf eren ce t o ann ou nc e th e fi li ng of aciv il act io n a ga in stnu m ero us gu n d eal ers , in cl ud in g Ad ve ntur e Out do or s. At t hi s p res s co nf eren ce, the New Yorkoff ic ia ls 3accu se d t he gu n d eal ers of v io la ti ng fed eral law, m ak in g s ta te m en ts su ch as t he

fo ll owi ng :

• “–a ndm os t ar e so ldby a sm al l [g ro up ] of rog ue gu n d eal ers who ref us e to ob ey fe de ra l l

aws .”

• “ ca ught

the m . . . br ea king

theFed er al la ws reg ul

at ing g un Sa les .”

• “ gr oup o f ba d app le s who ro ut in el y igno refed

er al reg ul at io ns .”

• “stop yo ur

il le ga l co nd uct or youto o wi ll face th is ki ndof p en al ty”; an d

• “ . . . hol di ng gu n d eal ers who br ea k t he l awacco un tabl e . . . .” Adv en tu re Outdo or

s v. Bl oo mbe rg , 51 9 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 25 8, 1 28 2 (N.D. Ga. 2 00 7) . Afte r th e p res s co nf

eren ce an d t he fil in g o f th e New York C ity off ic ia ls ’ la wsu itin th e Eas te rnDis tri ctof Ne w York(“ th e New York a ct io n” ), Adv en tu re Out do or s, In c.; J ay

W al la ce; an d C eci li a Walla ce (r eferredto co ll ect iv el y as

“pl ai nt iff s” ) fi le d s ui t i n t he Supe rio r Co urt o f Co bb Co un ty, Geo rg ia(“ th e Geo rg iaact io n” ) ag ai ns t New Yo rkCit y ; M ic ha el Blo om be rg , th e m ay or

of Ne w York C it y ; M ic ha el A. Card oz o, Co rp or at io n C ou ns el of t he Cit y of Ne w York ; Raym on d Kel ly, Ch ie f of Po li ce o f th e New York P ol ic e Dep art m en t; an d J oh n Fei nb la tt , Cri m in al Ju st ic e Co or di na to r of New YorkCit y

(refe rredto co ll ect iv el y as “New Yorkde fen dant s” an d “ de fen da nt s” ). In t he Geor gi a act io n, t he pl ai nt iff s al so na m edas d efen da nt s No on er In ve st ig at iv e Gro up ; Tan y a Ma rie Noo ne r, a 4Geo rg iares id en t an d t he pri nc ip al of No on er In ve st ig at iv e Gro up ; M el is sa

Mer ced , of No on er In ve st ig at iv e Gro up ; J os ep h To un se l, o f Noo ne r In ve st ig at iv e Gro up ; J am es Mi nt z, pr in ci pa l o f The James Mi nt z Gro up ; an d Th e Ja m es Mi nt z Gro up (refe rredto co ll ect iv el y as “ Geo rg iade fen da nt s” an d “ de fen da nt s” ). The co m pl ai ntin th e Geo rg iaact io n c on ta in s s ix co un ts . Cou ntOne s et s fo rth a nu m

be r of all eg ed ly defam at ory

st at em en ts m ad e b y

th e d efen dant s. Co un ts Two an d Th ree s ta te id en ti cal cla im s fo r gr os s n eg li ge nc e an d n eg li ge nc e, res pe ct iv el y . In the ne gl ig en ce-r el at edco un ts , th e p la in ti ffs co nt en d t ha t the New York d efen da nt s s ho ul d h av e co ns ul te d t he ir l awy ers to asc ert ai n the all eg ed il le ga li ty of th ei r in ve st ig at iv e sc he m e. The p la in ti ffs als o c la im th atth e New York d efen da nt s ea si ly cou ldha ve di sc ov eredth e le ga li ty of th e p la in ti ffs ’ op erat io ns by (a) in ve st ig at in g wh ethe r 21 gu ns us edin New Yorkcri m es were ne gl ig en tl y

or u nl awfu ll y

so ldby A dv en tu re Ou td oo rs ; (b ) co nt act in g t he ATF to in qu ire in to th e p la in ti ffs ’ pr ev io us co op erat io n wi th law en fo rcem en t ef fo rts ; (c ) co nt act in g t he pl ai nt iff

s d ire ct ly to i nqui re i nt o t he saf eg ua rd s t ha t wer e in pl ace a t Adv en tu re Ou td oo rs to pre ve ntun la wfu l fi rearm s s al es ; an d (d ) de br ie fin g t he Geo rg iade fen da nt s t o d et erm in e why the Adv en ture Ou td oo rs sal es pe rs on ask ed th e fem al e in ve st ig at or

to in it ia l the st raw p ur ch as er p arag rap h o f ATF Fo rm 44 73 du rin g t he si m

ul at edst raw p ur ch as e. Co un t Fo urco nt ai ns all eg at io ns of a id in g 5an d abe tt in g, an d C ou ntFiv e al le ge s t ha t M ay orBlo om be rg co m m it te d “ sp eci al vi ol at io ns ” th atwere b ot h d efam at ory an d g ro ss ly neg li ge ntwhenhe m etwith t he m ay orof At la nt a to en li sthe r supp ort fo r th e New York C it y in ve st ig at io n. Whil e no t l ab el edas s uc h, the co m pl ai ntals o c on ta in s wh atam ou nt s t o asi xt h c ou nt , an al le ga ti on of t orti ou s i nt erfe ren ce wi thbu si ne ss rel at io ns . The de fen da nt s re m ov edth e Geo rg iaact io n t o t he Uni te d S ta te s Di stric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a whe re the y so ug htto ha ve th e act io n di sm is se d o n anu m

be r of di ffer en t g ro un ds , or i n t he alt ern at iv e, tr an sf erre d t o t he East ern Dis tri ctof Ne w York . In re sp on se , th e p la in ti ffs fil eda m ot io n t o re m an d an d o pp os edth e d efen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s. Th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t fed eral juri sd ic ti on was p ro pe r, di sm is se d t he pl ai nt iff s’ neg li ge nc e-re la te d c la im s, de ni eddi sm is sa l o n t he cla im s fo r to rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce wi th bu si ne ss rel at io ns an d de fam at io n, an d d ecl in edto tra ns fer t he cas e. Inad di ti on , th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Geo rg ia ’s ant i-S LAPP st atut e d oe s n otap pl y to anact io n re m ov edto fed eral co urt an d t ha t Geo rg ia ’s pri vi le ge law g ov ern s t he pl ai nt iff s’ cla im s. Th is co urt g ran te d th e d efen da nt s an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al on th e an ti -SLAPP an d p riv il eg e ru li ng s. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW W e rev ie w subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Pin ta nd o v . Mia mi-Da de Hou s. Ag en cy , 50 1 F .3d12 41 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Lik ewis e, we rev ie w de 6no vo fed eral -v ers us -s ta te , or Eri e , ch oi ce-o f-l aw qu es ti on s, Esf eld v . Cos ta 1 Cr oc ie re, S.P.A. , 28 9 F .3d13 00 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ), an d s ta te -v ers us -s ta te ch oi ce-o f-l aw qu es ti on s, AIG Bake r Ste rl in g Hei gh ts , L.L.C. v. Am. Mult i-C in ema , In c. , 50 8 F .3d99 5, 9 99 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). III. ANALYSIS A . App li ca bl e La w

“ A rem ov in g d efen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g p ro pe r fed eral juri sd ic ti on .” Leo na rd

v. Ent er . Rent

a Ca r , 27 9 F .3d96 7, 9 72 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Any doubt s ab ou t the pro pr ie ty of fed eral juri sd ic ti on sh ou ldbe res ol ve d i n fa vo r of rem an d t o s ta te co urt. Diaz v. S he pp ar d , 85 F.3d15 02 , 15 05 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). The ex is te nc e o f fed eral juri sd ic ti on is tes te d a t the ti m e o f rem ov al . W hi tt v. Sh erman Int ’l C

or p. , 14 7 F .3d13 25 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). In d et erm in in g whe th er jur is di ct io n e xi st s und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 31 , a co urt m us t l oo k t o t he well pl ead edco m

pl ai ntalo ne . Lo uisv il le &Na sh vi ll e R. Co. v. Mo tt le y , 21 1 U.S. 1 49 , 15 2, 2 9 S . Ct. 4 2, 4 3 (1 90 8) . Thu s, t o m eetth ei r bu rd en , th e d efen da nt s m us t sh ow t ha t the pl ai nt iff

s’ com pl ai nt , as i t ex is te d a t the ti m e o f rem ov al , pro vi de s an ad equa te ba si s fo r th e ex erci se of f ed eral juri sd ic ti on . Alth ou gh th e p la in ti ffs

Erie R. R. Co. v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. C t. 817 (1938). 1 7br in g c la im s s ol el y un de r st at e la w, th e d efen da nt s ar gu e th atfed eral juri sd ic ti on no ne th el es s i s p ro pe r un de r th e subs ta nt ia l-f ed eral -que st io n juris di ct io n d oc tri ne . In Merre ll

Dow Ph armac eu ti ca ls , Inc . v. Tho mps on , 47 8 U.S. 8 04 , 80 5– 06 , 10 6 S . Ct. 3 22 9, 3 23 1 (1 98 6) , th e p la in ti ffs bro ug hta st at e-l aw to rt c la im ag ai ns t a drug m anuf

actur er, al le gi ng th atth e d efen da nt ’s fai lure t o c om pl y with t he br an di ng pro vi si on of the fed eral Fo od , Drug , andCo sm et ic Act (“ FDCA”) co ns ti tu te d n eg li ge nc e. Inde te rm in in g t ha t fe de ral juri sd ic ti on was n ot ap pr op ria te , th e Supr em e Co urt p la cedsp eci al em ph as is on th e fac t tha t Co ng res s ha d n otpro vi de d fo r a p riv at e cau se of a ct io n u nd er the FDCA: “ th e co ng res si on al de te rm in at io n t ha t the re s ho ul d b e n o fe de ral rem edy forth e vi ol at io n o f th is fed eral st atut e is tan ta m ou ntto a co ng res si on al co nc lu si onth at th e p res en ce o f a cl ai m edvi ol at io n o f th e st atut e as anele m en t o f a s ta te cau se of act io n i s i ns uf

fic ie nt ly ‘ subs ta nt ia l’ to co nf er fe de ral -que st io n ju ris di ct io n.” Merre ll Dow , 47 8 U.S. at81 4, 1 06 S. Ct. at32 35 . In Gra bl e & So ns Meta l Pr oduc ts , Inc . v. Dar ue Eng in eer in g & Man uf ac tu ri ng , 54 5 U.S. 3 08 , 12 5 S . Ct. 2 36 3 (2 00 5) , th e Supr em e Co urt retreat edso m ewh atfro m Merre ll Dow ’s foc us on th e av ai labi li ty of a fed eral pr iv at e ri gh t o f act io n andest ab li sh eda ne w tes t fo r de te rm in in g wh ethe r a s ta te la w cau se of a ct io n g iv es ris e to fed eral juri sd ic ti on . Fiv e y ears aft er the Int ern al 8Rev enue Serv ic e (“ IRS” ) se iz edan d s ol d t he pl ai nt iff ’s real pro pe rty to t he de fen da ntat atax sal e, th e p la in ti ff b ro ug hta qu ie t t it le act io n a ga in stth e de fen da ntin st at e co urt, al le gi ng th atth e IRS ha d g iv ende fic ie ntno ti ce o f se iz ur e un de r 26 U.S.C. § 6 33 5. Gra bl e , 54 5 U.S. at31 0– 11 , 12 5 S . Ct. at23 66 . The de fen da ntsubs eque nt ly rem ov edth e cas e to fed eral di st ric t co urt o n t he ba si s t ha t pl ai nt iff’s cla im

of t it le de pe nd edon in te rp ret at io n o f a fed eral tax st atut e. Id. Face d wi th th e que st io n wh ethe r rem ov al to fed eral co urt was ap pr op ria te , th e Co urt re vi ewedit s s ub st an ti al -fed eral -que st io n p rece de nt , hi gh li gh ti ng two im po rta ntth em es in th e cas es . Firs t, the Co urt ac kn owl ed ge d the “ co m m on se ns e no ti on th ata fed eral co urt o ug htto be ab le to he ar cl ai m s re co gn iz edun de r st at e la w th atno ne th el es s turn o n s ub st an ti al qu es ti on s o f fed eral law, an d t hu s ju st ify res ort t o t he ex pe rie nc e, so li ci tu de , andho pe of u ni fo rm it y th ata fed eral forum of fers on fed eral is su es .” Id. at31 2, 1 25 S. Ct. at23 67 . Seco nd , reco gn iz in g t he im po rta ntrol e th atCo ng res s p la y s i n d efi ni ng th e b ou nd ari es of f ed eral subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on , th e Co urt em ph as iz edth e n eedto co ns id er “ co ng res si on al jud gm en t ab ou t the so un d d iv is io n o f labo r be twee n s ta te an d fe de ral co urts go ve rn in g t he ap pl ic at io n o f § 1 33 1.” Id. at 3 13 –1 4, 1 25 S. Ct. at23 67 . To acco m m od at e b ot h o f th es e co nc ern s, the Co urt fa sh io ne d t he fol lo win g t es t:

“ [D]oes a st at e-l aw cl ai m ne ces sa ril y

rai se a st at edfed eral is su e, actua ll y di sp ut ed 9an d s ub st an ti al , whi ch a fed eral forum m ay en te rta in witho utdi sturbi ng an y co ng res si on al ly app ro ve d b al an ce o f fed eral an d s ta te jud ic ia l re sp on si bi li ti es [? ]” Id. at31 4, 1 25 S. Ct. at23 68 . App lying it s n ewly form

ul at edtes t, the Co urt h el d t ha t the pl ai nt iff’s qu ie t ti tl e cl ai m

warran te d fe de ral juri sd ic ti on be cau se “ [t]he m ean in g o f th e [d is pu te d] fed eral tax pro vi si on [was ] anim po rta ntis su e o f fed eral law t ha t s en si bl y be lo ng [ed ] in fed eral co urt,” a ndth e ex erci se of f ed eral juri sd ic ti onwou ld

“po rte ndon ly a mic ro sc op ic effe cton th e fed eral -s ta te di vi si on of l ab or .” Id. at 31 5, 1 25 S. Ct. at23 68 . The Co urt re ach edth is co nc lu si on de sp it e th e fac t tha t th e fed eral tax pro vi si on at i ss ue di d n otpro vi de a pr iv at e ri gh t o f act io n, re jecti ng a b ro adread in g o f Merre ll Dow. Acco rd in g t o t he Gra bl e Co urt, “ Merre ll Dowsh ou ldbe readin it s en ti rety as t reat in g t he ab se nc e o f a fed eral pri va te rig ht of act io n a s ev id en ce re le vantto , bu t n otdi sp os it iv e o f” co ng res si on al jud gm en t co nc ern in g t he pro pe r ba la nc e b etweenst at e an d fe de ral juri sd ic ti on . Id . at 3 18 , 12 5 S . Ct. at23 70 . Furt he rm or e, be cau se st at e to rt c la im s fr eque nt ly inv ol ve al le ge d v io la ti on s o f fed eral law, “ [a] gen eral rul e o f ex erci si ng fed eral juri sd ic ti on ov er s ta te cla im s re st in g o n fe de ral m is labe li ng an d o th er s ta tu to ry vi ol at io ns wou ldth us ha ve he ral de d apo te nt ia ll y en orm ou s s hi ft o f tr ad it io na ll y st at e cas es in to fed eral co urts .” Id. at31 9, 1 25 S. Ct. at23 70 –7 1. 10InEmpi re Heal th ch oi ce As su r., In c. v. McVei gh , 54 7 U.S. 6 77 , 68 2– 83 , 12 6 S. Ct . 21 21 , 21 27 (20 06 ), th e p la in ti ff, anin su ran ce ca rri er tha t ad m in is te reda he al th pl anforfed eral em pl oyees u nd er the Fed eral Em pl oyees Hea lt h B en efi ts Act, s ue d aform er p la n b en efi ci ary fo r rei m bu rs em en t o f cl ai m s p rev io us ly pai d aft er the pl anbe ne fic ia ry reco ve redda m ag es fro m a th irdpa rty in t he set tl em en t o f a st at e to rt a ct io n re la ti ng to th os e cl ai m s. Th e Empi re Heal th ch oi ce Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t the Gra bl e tes t ca rv es a “ sp eci al an d s m al l ca te go ry ” o f cas es ou t o f st at e co urt juris di ct io n o ve r st at e-l aw cl ai m s. Empi re Heal th ch oi ce , 54 7 U.S. at 69 9, 1 26 S. Ct. at21 36 . Con cl ud in g t ha t the rei m bu rs em en t cl ai m

at i ss ue in Empi re Heal th ch oi ce was “ po le s ap art ” fro m th e qui etti tl e cl ai m

in Gra bl e , th e Co urt h ig hl ig ht edsev eral fact or s t ha t s up po rte d t he ex erci se of ju ris di ct io n i n Gra bl e : “ The di sp ut e th ere c en te redon th e act io n o f a fed eral ag en cy (IRS) an d it s co m pa ti bi li ty w it h afed eral st atut e, th e que st io n qua li fie d a s ‘subs ta nt ia l,’ and it s re so lu ti on was b ot h d is po si ti ve of the cas e an d wo ul d b e co nt ro ll in g i n nu m ero us ot he r cas es .” Id. at 7 00 , 12 6 S . Ct. at21 37 . In ad di ti on , Gra bl e in vo lv eda “ ne arl y

pu re i ss ue of l aw.” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Bec au se th e d is pu te in Empi re Heal th ch oi ce was b etweenpri va te pa rti es , th e fed eral is su e was no t d is po si ti ve of t he cas e, an d t he rei m bu rs em en t cl ai m

was

11“ fact -b ou ndan d s itua ti on -s pe ci fic ,” th e Co urt h el d t ha t fe de ral juri sd ic ti on was

in ap pr op ria te . Id

. at70 0– 01 , 12 6 S . Ct. at21 37 . To d et erm in e whe th er the pre se ntcas e warrant s fe de ral juri sd ic ti on , we m us t ev al ua te whet he r th e p la in ti ffs ’ st at e-l aw to rt c la im s “ ne ces sa ril y rai se a st at edfed eral is su e, actua ll y di sp ut edan d s ub st an ti al , whi ch a fed eral forum m ay en te rta inwitho utdi sturbi ng an y co ng res si on al ly app ro ve d b al an ce o f fed eral an d st at e jud ic ia l re sp on si bi li ti es ,” Gra bl e , 54 5 U.S. at31 4, 1 25 S. Ct. at23 68 , ke ep in g i n m in d t ha t the Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ Gra bl e ex em pl ifi es ” a

“ sl im cat eg ory ” o f cas es , Empi re Heal th ch oi ce , 54 7 U.S. at70 1, 1 26 S. Ct. at 21 37 . B . Plai nt if

fs ’ Neg li ge nc e-Rel at ed

Cla ims The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the pl ai nt iff s’ id en ti cal cla im s fo r ne gl ig en ce an d g ro ss ne gl ig en ce ra is e d is pu te d fe de ral is su es , reas on in g tha t res ol ut io n o f th es e cl ai m s wo ul d re qu ire co ns id erat io n o f whe th er the Geor gi a de fen da nt s b ro ke fed eral law b y si m ul at in g ast raw p ur ch as e. Afte r car efu ll y rev ie win g t he all eg at io ns co nt ai ne d i n t he pl ai nt iff s’ com pl ai nt , we are n ot pe rs ua de d t ha t the ne gl ig en ce-r el at edcla im s “ ne ces sa ril y rai se a st at edfed eral is su e.” Gra bl e , 54 5 U.S. at31 4, 1 25 S. Ct. at23 68 .

12The ne gl ig en ce-r el at edco un ts of t he pl ai nt iff s’ com pl ai ntco nt ai n al le ga ti on s t ha t the New Yorkde fen da nt s m ad e a num be r of ne gl ig en t o m is si on s du rin g t he ir i nv es ti ga ti on . Bro ad ly stat ed , th e p la in ti ffs all eg e th atth e New York de fen da nt s fa il edto in ve st ig at e th e p la in ti ffs ’ op erat io ns th or ou gh ly. In a dd it io n, th e p la in ti ffs cla im

th atth e New York d efen da nt s ei th er fa il edto co ns ul t the ir la wy ers reg ard in g t he leg al it y of s im ul at edst raw p ur ch as es or i gn or edth ei r la wy ers ’ advi ce o n t he subjec t. The di st ric t co urt v ie wedth e al le ga ti on of afai lu re to co ns ul t co un se l as anall eg at io n o f “ ne gl ig en t fa il ur e to ap pr eci at e th e al le ge dl y il le ga l n atur e o f th e ‘sti ng ’ op erat io ns .” Adv en tu re Outdo or s v. Bl oo mbe rg , 51 9 F . Supp . 2dat 1 27 5. Und er Geo rg ialaw, a p la in ti ff m us t p ro ve th e fo ll owi ng ele m en ts to reco ve r on a cl ai m

forne gl ig en ce:

“ (1 ) A leg al du ty to co nf

orm to a st an da rdof c on du ctrai se d b y th e la w for th e p ro te ct io n o f othe rs ag ai ns t u nr eas on ab le ris ks of h arm ; (2 ) a b reac h o f th is st an dard ; (3 ) a l eg al ly attr ib ut ab le cau sa l co nn ect io n b etweenth e co nduc t an d t he res ul ti ng in jury; and(4) so m e lo ss or d am ag e fl owi ng to th e pl ai nt iff 's l eg al ly pro te ct edin te res t as a res ul t o f th e al le ge d b reac h o f th e le ga l dut y .”

13Bra dl ey Ctr., In c. v. W es sn er , 25 0 Ga. 1 99 , 20 0, 2 96 S.E.2d69 3, 6 95 (19 82 ) (quo ti ng Lee St. Au to Sa les, In c. v. W ar re n , 10 2 Ga. Ap p. 3 45 , 34 5, 1 16 S.E.2d 24 3, 2 45 (19 60 )). The pl ai nt iff

s’ com pl ai ntdo es no t i de nt ify the so ur ce o f th e le ga l dut y th ey are i nv ok in g, b utan y

co nc ei vabl e le ga l dut y

th e New York d efen da nt s o wedth e pl ai nt iff s ex is ts in de pe nd en tl y

of f ed eral law. Fu rth erm or e, whe th er the New York de fen da nt s co m

m it te d t he all eg edbre ach es is a factua l m at te r th atcanbe res ol ve d wit ho utap pl y in g fe de ral law. The di stric t co urt n ot edth atth e p la in ti ffs do no t s pe ci fy with p reci si on th e na tu re o f th ei r da m ag es in th e n eg li ge nc e-re la te d c ou nt s o f th e co m pl ai nt . Howev er, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the pl ai nt iff s’ cla im forto rti ou s in te rfer en ce wi th bu si ne ss rel at io ns supp li es th e n eces sary art ic ul at io n o f da m ag es –h arm

to th e p la in ti ffs ’ bu si ne ss . Ado pt in g t hi s arti cu la ti on of d am ag es fo r th e p ur

po se of e va lu at in g ju ris di ct io n, we co nc lu de th atth e el em en ts of 2 cau sa ti on an d d am ag es do no t ra is e a fed eral is su e in th is cas e. The re le va nt in qu iry for caus at io n p ur

po se s i s wh atact io n t he New Yorkde fen dant s wo ul d ha ve tak enpu rs ua ntto a m or e car efu l an d t ho ro ug h i nv es ti ga ti on , no t wh ethe r th e
We ex p ress no opinion whether the district court corr ectly conclude d that the plaintiffs’ 2 neg lige nce claims are barr ed by the “ec onomic loss” rule or whether the plaintiffs’ complaint alleg es any damag es cognizable in a neg lige nce a ction. 14pl ai nt iff

s ar e la w-ab id in g g un de al ers or t he si m ul at edstraw p ur ch as e it se lf wa s il le ga l. Inot he r wor ds , pro of of c au sa ti ondo es no t re qu ire res ol ut io n o f anis su e of fed eral law. Inad di ti on to all eg in g i nv es ti ga to ry erro rs , th e p la in ti ffs ’ gr os s n eg li ge nc e co un t al so st at es th at“ [t]he act io ns of t he Geor gi a Defen da nt s p ro vi de d fo r th e New YorkDefen da nt s a c or e b as is up on whi ch th e New York Def en da nt s ac te d an d t hu s co nt rib ut eddi rect ly to the Gros s Neg li ge nc e.” Co m pl . ¶ 31 (E). Perh ap s se iz in g upo n t hi s l an gu ag e, th e d efen da nt s ar gu e th atth e p la in ti ffs ’ no nde fam at io n c la im s ar e b as edon all eg at io ns of f rau du le ntco nduc t an d t ha t the pl ai nt iff s m us t p ro ve th atth e Geo rg iade fen dant s l ie d o n afed eral form in ord er t o es tabl is h t hi s al le ge d fr au d. Th e d efen da nt s’ arg um en t fa il s fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, th e Geo rg iade fen da nt s’ exe cu ti on of t he si m ul at edst raw p ur ch as e se rv edas the ba si s fo r th e New York d efen da nt s’ all eg ed ly defam at ory st at em en ts ab ou t the pl ai nt iff s. Th us , th e al le ga ti on th atth e Geo rg iade fen da nt s p ro vi de d aco re b as is fo r th e act io ns of t he New Yorkde fen da nt s m or e p ro pe rly relat es to th e p la in ti ffs ’ de fam at io n c la im s t ha n the ir n eg li ge nc e cl ai m s. Sec on d, t he pl ai nt iff s h av e n ot su edth e d efen da nt s fo r frau d, an d a s d is cu ss edab ov e, th e es se nc e o f th e p la in ti ffs ’ ne gl ig en ce cl ai m s i s t he de gr ee o f car e ex erci se d b y th e New York d efen dant s, n ot th e le ga li ty of th e act io ns of t he Geor gi a d efen da nt s. 15Bec au se we do no t b el ie ve th atth e p la in ti ffs ’ ne gl ig en ce-r el at edcla im s

ne ces sa ril y

rai se a fed eral is su e, we co nc lu de th atth e n eg li ge nc e-re la te d c la im s d o no t p ro vi de a su ffi ci en t b as is forth e ex erci se of f ed eral juri sd ic ti on . C . Plai nt if

fs ’ Def ama ti on Cla ims The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the pl ai nt iff s’ def am at io n c la im s ra is e a di sp ut edfed eral is su e, reas on in g t ha t re so lu ti on of t he se cla im s wo ul d re qu ire co ns id erat io n o f whe th er the pl ai nt iff s b ro ke fed eral law b y

pa rti ci pa ti ng in a si m ul at edst raw p ur ch as e. W e ag ree. The pl ai nt iff

s al le ge th atth e d efen da nt s’ st at em en ts accu si ng th e p la in ti ffs of vi ol at in g fe de ral gu n l aws co ns ti tu te de fam at io n. Th e d efen dant s ar gu e th at un de r bo th fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al law an d Geo rg ialaw, the pl ai nt iff s m us t p ro ve th e fal si ty of th e al le ge dl y de fam at ory

st at em en ts in ord er t o p rev ai l o n t he ir cl ai m s. In Phi la de lp hi a N ews pa pe rs , Inc . v. Hepp s , 47 5 U.S. 7 67 , 76 8– 69 , 10 6 S . Ct . 15 58 , 15 59 (19 86 ), th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t Fi rs t Am en dm en t co nc ern s m an da te th ata pr iv at e p la in ti ff s ui ng a m ed iade fen da ntforde fam at io n re la ti ng to sp eech ona m at te r of

publ ic co nc ern m

us t p ro ve th atth e st at em en ts at i ss ue are fal se . Two of

th e jus ti ces joi ni ng th e m ajor ity op in io n c on curredsep arat el y to ex pr es s t he ir v ie w th atth e ru le an no un cedin Hep ps sh ou ldno t b e li m it edto m ed ia de fen da nt s. Hep

ps , 47 5 U.S. at78 0, 1 06 S. Ct. at15 65 . The p la in ti ffs arg ue th at

16th is co urt s ho ul d re ad Hep ps narro wly an d d ecl in e to ap pl y it s co ns ti tu ti on al rul e to th ei r de fam at io n c la im s ag ai ns t n on -m ed iade fen da nt s. Ho wev er, thi s ca se do es no t re qu ire us to ex am in e th e p reci se co nt ou rs of F irs t Am en dm en t d oc tri ne be cau se “ Geo rg ialaw p ut s t he bu rd enof p ro vi ng fal si ty on t he pl ai nt iff .” Stra w v. Ch as e Revel

, Inc . , 81 3 F .2d35 6, 3 61 n.6 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). In arece ntcas e in vo lv in g i nt ern etpo st in gs by a con cern edcit iz en , th e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg ia co nf irmed th atwhen “ a li be l ac ti on in vo lv es a sp eech of p ub li c co nc ern , a pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w th at. . . th e d efam at ory st at em en t was fal se .” Mathis v. C an no n , 27 6 Ga. 16 , 21 , 57 3 S .E.2d37 6, 3 80 (20 02 ) (ci ti ng Hep ps , 47 5 U.S. at77 6, 1 06 S. Ct. at15 64 ). The Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s re ci ta ti on of the Hep ps rul e in a cas e in vo lv in g ano n- m ed iade fen da ntde m on strat es th atun de r Geo rg ialaw, a p la in ti ff al le gi ng de fam at io n re la ti ng to sp eech on a m at te r of publ ic co nc ern be ars th e bu rd enof p ro vi ng th e fal si ty of th e rel ev an t s ta te m en ts . The fact s o f th is cas e cl earl y tri gg er the Hep

ps ru le as e xp res se d b y

th e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iain Mathis . New YorkCit y publ ic off

ic ia ls m ad e st at em en ts reg ard in g a ll eg edvi ol at io ns of f ed eral gu n l aws an d d rew a co nn ect io n be twee n tho se all eg edvi ol at io ns an d t he he al than d s afet y of Ne w Yorkcit iz en s, a m at te r of publ ic co nc ern . To reco ve r fo r de fam at io n, t he pl ai nt iff s m us t p ro ve th e fal si ty of th e d efen da nt s’ st at em en ts co nc ern in g fe de ral law, an is su e whi chth e 17pa rti es ho tl y co nt es t. Thu s, the pl ai nt iff s’ def am at io n c la im s “ ne ces sa ril y rai se a st at edfed eral is su e, actua ll y di sp ut ed ” an d s at is fy

th e fi rs t two Gra bl e requi rem en ts . Gra bl e , 54 5 U.S. at31 4, 1 25 S. Ct. at23 68 . Alt ho ug h t he pl ai nt iff

s’ com pl ai ntrai se s a c on te st edfed eral is su e, th e na tu re o f th e d is pu te be twee n t he pa rti es su gg es ts th atth is is su e d oe s n otm eet Gra bl e ’s subs ta nt ia li ty requ ire m en t. Gra bl e em ph as iz edth e im

po rta nc e o f pr ov id in g afed eral forum for“ subs ta nt ia l que st io ns of f ed eral law.” Id. at31 2, 12 5 S . Ct. at23 67 . In Gra bl e , th e “ m ean in g o f th e fed eral st atut e [was ] actua ll y in di sp ut e [an d] ap pe ar[e d] to be th e o nl y leg al or f actua l i ss ue co nt es te d i n the cas e.” Id. at31 5, 1 25 S. Ct. at23 68 . The Supr em e Co urt h as subs eque nt ly con firm ed th ata cru ci al fact orsupp orti ng th e res ul t i n Gra bl e was t he pre se nc e o f a “ ne arl y pu re i ss ue of l aw.” Empi re Heal th ch oi ce , 54 7 U.S. at70 0, 1 26 S. Ct. at21 37 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Unl ik e Gra bl e , Empi re Heal th ch oi ce pr es en te d a“ fact -b ou ndan d s itua ti on -s pe ci fic ” is su e; th us , fed eral juri sd ic ti on was in ap pr op ria te in th e la tt er ca se . Id. at70 1, 1 26 S. Ct. at21 37 . The Sev en th Cir cu itrece nt ly em ph as iz edth is di st in ct io n b etweenfactua l an d l eg al is su es whenithe ldth ata fed eral co urt co ul d n otex erci se juri sd ic ti on ov er an Ill in oi s s ta te to rt c la im st emm in g fr om

anav ia ti on acci de nt : “ Wha t the Co urt s ai d abo ut Gra bl e in Empi re Heal th ch oi ce canbe sai d h ere t oo . W e h av e a 18fact -s pe ci fic ap pl ic at io n o f ru le s t ha t co m e fro m bo th fed eral an d s ta te law ra th er th ana co nt ex t-f

ree i nqui ry

in to th e m ean in g o f a fed eral law.” Ben ne tt v. Sw . Air li nes C

o. , 48 4 F .3d90 7, 9 10 (7t h C ir. 2 00 7) ; se e a ls o Sin gh v. Dua ne Morris LLP , 53 8 F .3d33 4, 3 39 (5t h C ir. 2 00 8) (fi nd in g fe de ral juri sd ic ti on in ap pr op ria te whe re “ fed eral is su e [d idno t re qu ire ] res ol ut io n o f anim po rta ntqu es ti on of l aw” bu t was “pr ed om in an tl y

on e o f fac t” ). Inco nt ras t, the Fed eral Cir cu itrece nt ly uph el d fe de ral juri sd ic ti on ov er a st at e m al pr act ic e act io n s te m m in g fr om

pa te ntli ti ga ti on , dec la rin g t ha t “ Gra bl e di d n otho ldth aton ly stat e-l aw cl ai m s tha t i nv ol ve co ns tru ct io ns of f ed eral st atut e orpu re que st io ns of l aw be lo ng edin fed eral co urt.” Air Mea su re men t Te ch ., Inc . v. Akin Gump Stra us s Ha ue r & Feld , L.L.P. , 50 4 F .3d12 62 , 12 72 (Fed . Cir . 20 07 ). Thes e cas es are n otne ces sa ril y in co ns is te nt . W e d o n otread Ben ne tt or Si ngh to say tha t o nl y

pu re l eg al is su es cantri gg er s ub st an ti al fed eral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on , bu t ra th er tha t re so lu ti on of p ur e is su es of f ed eral law p ro vi de s t he st ro ng es t b as is for“ res ort t o t he ex pe rie nc e, so li ci tu de , andho pe of u ni fo rm it y th ata fed eral forum

off ers on fed eral is su es .” Gra bl e , 54 5 U.S. at31 2, 1 25 S. Ct. at23 67 . Furt he rm or e, Air Mea su re men t Te ch no lo gi es is be stun de rs to odin th e co nt ex t o f pa te ntlaw, an areain whi ch th e fed eral co urts un do ub te dl y ha ve sp eci al co m pe te nc e. Inany

ev en t, Supr em e Co urt p rece de ntan d t he law o f ou r si st er

19ci rcu it s p la ce a s tro ng , if n otdi sp os it iv e, em ph as is on th e ch arac te r of th e d is pu te d fed eral is su e in ev al ua ti ng th e p ro pr ie ty of subs ta nt ia l fe de ral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on . Inth e p res en t ca se , th e d efen da nt s ch arac te riz e th ei r di sa gr eem en t wi th th e pl ai nt iff s o ve r th e le ga li ty of th e p la in ti ffs ’ co nduc t as a di sp ut e o ve r th e m ean in g of fed eral law. Fo cu si ng on a vi de ot ap e th atpu rp orte dl y do cu m en ts th e p la in ti ffs ’ pa rti ci pa ti on in a si m

ul at edstraw p ur ch as e, th e d efen dant s co nt en d t ha t the factua l ba si s fo r th e al le ge d v io la ti on s o f fed eral law i s n otat i ss ue . In the ir v ie w, res ol ut io n o f th e fed eral is su e tu rn s o n wh ethe r fed eral law p ro hi bi ts th e p la in ti ffs ’ pu rp orte dl y

un di sp ut edco nduc t. Bu t the de fen da nt s m is ch arac te riz e th e n atur e o f th e d is pu te . The pl ai nt iff

s v eh em en tl y

co nt es t the de fen da nt s’ ver si on of t he fact s, ta ki ng is su e wit h the no ti onth atth e d efen da nt s’ vi de ot ap e d oc um en ts all of t he rel ev an t co nduc t an d a ss ert in g t ha t the Geor gi a d efen dant s fr au du le nt ly induc ed th e Adv en tu re Ou td oo rs sal es pe rs on to m ak e th e sa le at i ss ue . In o urvi ew, th is al le ga ti on of f

rau du le ntin du cem en t d oe s n otam ou ntto anarg um en t ab ou t the m ean in g o f fed eral law. In st ead , we readth e p la in ti ffs ’ co m pl ai ntto say tha t the Geo rg iade fen da nt s d ecei ve d t he pl ai nt iff s b y rep res en ti ng th atth e fem al e un de rco ve r ag en t was th e actua l p ur ch as er o f th e fi rearm an d tha t the pl ai nt iff

s h ad 20no kn owl ed ge th atth ey were p art ic ip at in g i n ast raw p ur ch as e, si m ul at edor ot he rwis e. If th is cas e were t o re ach tri al , res ol ut io n o f th e p la in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s ul ti m at el y

wou ldrequi re an ev al ua ti on of t hi s fa ctua l ar gu m en t. To b e su re, the jury w ou ldha ve to ap pl y fed eral law t o re ach it s d eci si on . Butas t he Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d i n Gra bl e , th e fed eral co urts ha ve reject edth e “ ex pa ns iv e v ie w th atm ere n eedto ap pl y

fed eral law i n ast at e-l aw cl ai m wil l s uf fic e to op enth e ‘aris in g u nd er’ do or .” Gra bl e , 54 5 U.S. at31 3, 1 25 S. Ct. at23 67 . Fu rth erm or e, we are n otpe rs ua de d t ha t the m ean in g o f th e rel ev an t fe de ral la w is un cl ear. Here , th e d efen da nt s co rrec tl y co nc ed e th atfed eral law p ro hi bi ts pa rti ci pa ti on by bot h b uyers an d s el le rs in st raw p ur ch as es of f ire arm s. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ort iz , 31 8 F .3d10 30 , 10 38 –3 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (up ho ld in g c on vi ct io n o f in di vi du al act in g a s s tra w pu rch as er); Uni te d Sta tes v. N el so n , 22 1 F .3d12 06 , 12 09 –1 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (up ho ld in g c on vi ct io n o f “ actua l b uyer” inst raw pu rch as e tr an sa ct io n) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Br oo ks , 61 1 F .2d61 4, 6 16 (5t h C ir. 1 98 0) 3 (uph ol di ng co nv ic ti on of s el le r in st raw p ur ch as e tr an sa ct io n) . Howev er, the

The curr ent Fifth Circuit ha s overr uled Brooks on other grounds. United States v. Henry , 3 749 F.2d 203, 206 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc) . Upon t he creation of this Circuit, we adopted as binding prec edent all the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit announce d prior to October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) . We are not bound by subsequent decisions of the new Fifth Circuit, and Brooks rema ins g ood law in the Eleventh Circuit. United States v. Blanton , 793 F.2d 1553, 1559 & n.6 (11th Cir. 1986). 21de fen da nt s ar gu e th atitis un cl ear wh ethe r fed eral law p ro hi bi ts sal es to st raw

pu rch as ers inth e co nt ex t o f th is cas e, fo cu si ng sp eci fic al ly on wh ethe r pa rti ci pa ti on in a si m

ul at edstraw p ur ch as e is il le ga l. The de fen da nt s ar e m is ta ke n; fed eral co urts have up he ldnu m ero us co nv ic ti on s fo r de al er p art ic ip at io n in si m ul at edstraw p ur ch as es . Se e, e.g . , Uni te d Sta tes v. In gl es e , 28 2 F .3d52 8 (7 th Ci r. 20 02 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Ri et zk e , 27 9 F .3d54 1 (7 thCir . 20 02 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Stra ac h , 98 7 F .2d23 2 (5 th Cir . 19 93 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Br oo ks , 61 1 F .2d61 4 (5 th Ci r. 19 80 ). Two o th er fa ct or s ce nt ral to Gra bl e ’s subs tant ia li ty anal y si s–th e im po rta nc e of th e g ov ern m en t’s i nt eres t i n t he di sp ut edfed eral tax pro vi si on an d t he ab il it y of a fed eral ag en cy

to vi nd ic at e it s ac ti on in fed eral co urt–weig h a ga in stfin di ng a subs ta nt ia l fe de ral qu es ti on in th is cas e. Se e Gra bl e , 54 5 U.S. at31 5, 1 25 S. Ct. at 23 68 . The fed eral go ve rn m en t u nque st io nabl y ha s a s tro ng in te res t i n t he un ifo rm it y

an d c on si st en cy

of f ed eral cri m in al law. Se e Ta ff li n v . Levi tt , 49 3 U.S. 45 5, 4 65 , 11 0 S . Ct. 7 92 , 79 8 (1 99 0) (co m m en ti ng th at“ co nc ern with t he ne edfor un ifo rm it y

an d c on si st en cy

of f ed eral cri m in al law i s wel l t ak en ”). Howe ve r, st at e co urt ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral cri m in al law i n the civ il co nt ex t d oe s n otpo se a se rio us th reatto th is fed eral in te res t. If t he st at e co urt wer e to ex erci se juri sd ic ti on he re, the fed eral co urts st il l “ wou ldret ai n fu ll au th or it y an d re sp on si bi li ty for the 22in te rp ret at io n a ndap pl ic at io n o f fed eral cri m in al law, fo r th ey wou ldno t b e b ou nd by [th e] sta te co urt i nt erp ret at io n[ ]” of th e fed eral gu n s ta tu te s. Id . Inres ol vi ng th e fed eral is su e, th e st at e co urt wo ul d “ be gu id edby feder al co urt i nt erp ret at io ns of th e rel ev an t fe de ral cri m in al st atut es .” Id. As p rev io us ly not ed , fed eral law pr ov id es cle ar g ui da nc e inth is cas e. Add it io na ll y , th e p la in ti ffs ha ve no t ch al le ng edth e act io ns of the ATF, th e fed eral ag en cy ch arg edwith e nf

or ci ng th e gu n l aws . Thu s, thi s ca se is un li ke ly to i m pa ctth e fed eral go ve rn m en t’s i nt eres ts orit s ab il it y

to vi nd ic at e th os e in te res ts th ro ug h a dm in is tra ti ve act io n. In Empi re Heal th ch oi ce , th e Co urt em ph as iz edth atth e le ga l i ss ue in Gra bl e

“ was bo thdi sp os it iv e o f th e cas e an d wo ul d b e co nt ro ll in g i n num ero us ot he r cas es .” Empi re Heal th ch oi ce , 54 7 U.S. at70 0, 1 26 S. Ct. at21 37 . The fed eral is su e p os it edby the de fen da nt s h ere d oe s n otdi sp os e o f th is cas e. If th e tr ia l co urt ru le s t ha t p art ic ip at io n i n s im ul at edst raw p ur ch as es is il le ga l, the pl ai nt iff s ar e free to arg ue , as afactua l m at te r, th atth ey be li ev edth e fem al e in ve st ig at orpo si ng as a st raw p ur ch as er was th e actua l p ur ch as er o f th e fi rearm . If th e tr ia l co urt co nc lu de s t ha t fe de ral law d oe s n otpro hi bi t p art ic ip at io n i n s im ul at edst raw pu rch as es , th e p la in ti ffs st il l m us t s ho w, am on g o th er thi ng s, tha t the de fen da nt s’ st at em en ts were n otpri vi le ge d.

23Inad di ti on , th e st at e co urt i nt erp ret at io n o f th e g un st atut es wil l n otbe

co nt ro ll in g i n n um ero us ot he r cas es be cau se itwil l n othave pre ced en ti al effe ctin th e fed eral syste m . Se e Ta ff li n , 49 3 U.S. at46 5, 1 10 S. Ct. at79 8 (n ot in g t ha t fed eral co urts are n otbo un d b y st at e co urt i nt erp ret at io ns of f ed eral cri m in al st atut es ). In d ecl in in g t o e xe rci se fed eral juri sd ic ti on ov er a s ta te -la w sh areh ol de r su itim pl ic at in g i ss ue s o f fed eral tax law, the Six th Cir cu itrece nt ly stat ed : Whi le th e fed eral go ve rn m en t m ay ha ve anin te res t i n t he un ifo rm ap pl ic at io n o f reg ul at io ns th atrel at e to th e co ll ect io n o f ta xe s, i t h as on ly a li m it edin te res t i n p riv at e to rt o r co nt ractli ti ga ti on ov er the pri va te du ti es in vo lv edin th atco ll ect io n. Th e g ov ern m en t’s ab il it y to co ll ecttax es fro m anin di vi du al sh areh ol de r orco rp or at io n i s n otaffe ct edby the res ol ut io n o f th e d is pu te be twee n t he se two pa rti es . The g ov ern m en t i s fr ee t o i nt erp ret an d app ly the tax co de as i t s ees fit , witho utth e sl ig ht es t re ga rdforth is la wsu it . Unl ik e Gra bl e , inwhi ch th e IRS ’s pre va il in g p ract ic e was all eg ed to vi ol at e due pro ces s, thi s ca se wil l h av e n o res j ud ic at a effe ctth atwou ld ap pl y to th e IRS , no m at te r whi ch co urt, fe de ral or s ta te , dec id es th e cas e. Mik ul ski v. Ce nt er io r En er

gyCo rp . , 50 1 F .3d55 5, 5 70 (6t h C ir. 2 00 7) (enba nc ) (in te rn al cit at io n o m it te d) . The s am e is tru e h ere. Th e fed eral go ve rn m en t h as a li m it edin te res t i n t hi s p riv at e to rt a ct io n o ve r pr iv at e dut ie s t an ge nt ia ll y rel at edto 24th e fed eral gu n l aws , andth e fed eral go ve rn m en t m ay co nt inue to en fo rce f

ed eral gu n l aws an d re gu la ti on s wi th ou t co nc ern forth e o ut co m e o f th is laws ui t. Bec au se th e ATF is no t a p arty to th is su it , th e o ut co m e can no t p os si bl y ha ve an y res jud ic at a eff

ectth atwou ldap pl y

to th e ATF oran y

ot he r arm

of f ed eral law en fo rcem en t. Inou r vi ew, th e p la in ti ffs ’ de fam at io n c la im s d o n otrai se a subs ta nt ia l i ss ue of fed eral law. Th e d is pu te be twee n t he pa rti es co nc ern s the factua l b as is forth e de fen da nt s’ st at em en ts accu si ng th e p la in ti ffs of v io la ti ng fed eral law. Cl ear fed eral gu id an ce ex is ts on ev ery qu es ti on of f ed eral law re le va ntto ev al ua ti ng th e fal si ty of th os e st at em en ts . “ W e are m in df ul th atst at e co urts are g en eral ly pr es um edco m

pe te ntto in te rp retan d app ly feder al law.” Id. at56 0. Whil e th is cas e d oe s ra is e anim

po rtantfed eral is su e, th e fed eral is su e in th is cas e d oe s n ot im pl ic at e in a si gn ifi can t way the co nc ern s t ha t s up po rte d t he ex erci se of f ed eral juri sd ic ti on ov er the st at e-l aw cl ai m in Gra bl e . In o th er wo rd s, “ [t]he pe rti ne nt fin di ng , whi ch lea ds to ou r pr es en t co nc lu si on , is th atth e fed eral in te res t i n t hi s cas e is no t ‘subs ta nt ia l’ as t ha t t erm ha s b een de fin edun de r th e p rev ai li ng Supr em e Co urt p rece de nt .” Id. at57 2. Ourde ci si on he re i s n otin co ns is te ntwith o urpre vi ou s d eci si onin Ayre s v. Gen eral Mot or s C or p. , 23 4 F .3d51 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 0) . In tha t ca se , a gr oup o f

25pl ai nt iff

s b ro ug htsu itun de r Geo rg ia ’s civ il RICO s ta tu te , O.C.G.A § 16 -1 4- 1 et se q. , all eg in g v io la ti on s o f th e fed eral m ai l fr au d andwire frau d s ta tu te s, 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 13 41 , 13 42 , whi ch are p red ic at e o ffen se s co ns ti tu ti ng rack et eeri ng un de r Geo rg ia ’s RICO s ta tu te . Ayre s , 23 4 F .3d at51 6. Th e p la in ti ffs arg ue d t ha t th e Nat io na l Traf

fic an d M ot orVehi cl e Saf ety Act (“ Safe ty A ct ”), 4 9 U.S.C. § 30 11 8 et seq . , creat eda du ty of di sc lo su re, an d t ha t the de fen da nt s’ fai lu re t o m ak e di sc lo su res un de r th e Saf ety Act co ns ti tu te d fe de ral m ai l an d wi re fraud . Id. at 51 7. We hel d t ha t wh ethe r “ a b reac h o f th e d is cl os ur e dut y un de r th e Saf

ety Act co ns ti tu te s a f

ed eral m ai l an d wi re fraudcri m e . . . con st itut es a fed eral qu es ti on whi chm ay

be subs ta nt ia l en ou gh to co nf er fe de ral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on .” Id. at 51 9. Ho wev er, we d ecl in edto “ ho ldth at ever yst at e RIC O cau se of a ct io n wh ic h de pe nd s upo n p ro vi ng , as n eces sa ry pre di cat e act s, a v io la ti on of t he fed eral m ai l an d wi re fraudst atue s es tabl is he s fe de ral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on .” Id . Ins te adwe su rm is edth atth e “pa rti cu lar co nt ro ve rs y in [ Ayre s ] m ay

ve ry well [ha ve m ad e it ] on e o f th os e ex cep ti on al cas es ” in whi chth e ex erci se of f ed eral juri sd ic ti on ov er a st at e-l aw cau se of a ct io n i s ap pr op ria te . Id .

26W e b el ie ve th atth e fed eral qu es ti on in Ayres was m or e subs tant ia l tha n t he

fed eral is su e in th e cas e su b j ud ic e . Ayre s in vo lv edtwo lev el s o f fed eral 4 qu es ti on s. Th e n eedto co ns tru e in de pe nd en t b od ie s o f fed eral law an d t o de te rm in e th e le ga l ef

fectof t he in te ract io n o f th os e two bo di es of l aw m ad e th e fed eral qu es ti on in Ayre s far m or e subs ta nt ia l tha n t he on e p res en te d b y Adv en tu re Out do or s’s d efam at io n c la im . The fou rth fact orof the Gra bl e te st , th e “ co ng res si on al ly app ro ve d b al an ce of fed eral an d s ta te jud ic ia l re sp on si bi li ti es ,” al so weig hs ag ai ns t uph ol di ng fed eral juri sd ic ti on in th e p res en t ca se . Gra bl e , 54 5 U.S. at31 4, 1 25 S. Ct. at 23 68 . As th e Co urt i n Gra bl e ex pl ai ne d, “ ev enwhen th e st at e act io n d is cl os es a co nt es te d a ndsubs ta nt ia l fe de ral qu es ti on , th e ex erci se of f ed eral juri sd ic ti on is subjec t t o apo ss ib le ve to ” whe n i t wi ll up se t the ba lanc e b etweenfed eral an d s ta te jud ic ia l re sp on si bi li ty env is io ne d b y Co ng res s. Id. at31 3– 14 , 12 5 S . Ct. at23 67 . The Gra bl e Co urt h el d t ha t “ be cau se itwil l b e th e rar e st at e ti tl e cas e th atrai se s a co nt es te d m at te r of

fed eral law,” t he ex erci se of f ed eral juri sd ic ti on wou ld

We enter ed our decision in Ayres prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Grable ; hence , 4 we did not conduct a substantiality analy sis along the lines sug g ested i n Gr a ble and Empire Healthchoice . We express no opinion whether the issue in Ayres would qualify as substantial under Grable , but mere ly conclude that the fede ral issue in the prese nt case is not as sub s tantial as the fede ral que stion in Ayres . 27“po rte ndon ly a mic ro sc op ic effe cton th e fed eral -s ta te di vi si on of l ab or .” Id. at

31 5, 1 25 S. Ct. at23 68 . The s am e can no t b e sa idforst at e d efam at io n c la im s. Ourco nc ern is th atby autho riz in g t he ex erci se of f ed eral juri sd ic ti on he re, we wou ldop enth e d oo rs of t he fed eral co urts inth is cir cu itwhen ev er a de fam at io n d efen da ntaccu se s a p la in ti ff o f vi ol at in g fe de ral law. Alt ho ug h Gra bl e retreat edfro m Merre ll Dow ’s nea rly excl us iv e fo cu s o n apri va te rig htof act io n, Gra bl e m ad e cl ear t ha t the ab se nc e o f a fed eral pri va te rig htof a ct io n s ti ll sh ou ldbe tre at edas e vi de nc e rel ev an t t o c on gr es si on al jud gm en t co nc ern in g t he pr op er b al an ce b etweenst at e an d fe de ral juri sd ic ti on . Id. at 3 18 , 12 5 S . Ct. at 23 70 . Merre ll

Dow ’s rat io na le ap pl ie s fo rcef ul ly to s ta te to rt c la im s t ha t i nv ol ve al le ga ti on s o f fed eral cri m in al vi ol at io ns . Con gr es s h as gi ve n t he fed eral di st ric t co urts ex cl us iv e o rig in al juri sd ic ti onov er “ al l o ffen se s ag ai ns t the laws of t he Uni te d S ta te s.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 32 31 (20 06 ). Howev er, thi s ju ris di ct io na l p ro vi si on do es no t am ou ntto au th or iz at io n o f a fed eral pri va te rig htof a ct io n any tim e a ci vi l p la in ti ff i nv ok es a fed eral cri m in al st atut e. The d efen da nt s h av e n otdra wn th is co urt’s at te nt io n t o a ny pro vi si onof t he fed eral cri m in al law t ha t ex pr es se s a co ng res si on al in te ntto rem ov e st at e d efam at io n c as es fro m st at e co urt juris di ct io n.

28Inou r vi ew, th e b al an ce o f st at e an d fe de ral juri sd ic ti on al res po ns ib il it ie s m os t

co ns is te ntwith c le arl y

ex pr es se d c on gr es si on al in te ntis st at e co urt re so lu ti on of st at e to rt c la im s an d fe de ral co urt re so lu ti on of f ed eral cri m in al pro se cu ti on s. Here t oo , ou r de ci si on in Ayre s is di st in gu is habl e. In Ayre s , we con cl ud ed th atth e fed eral m ai l an d wi re fraudst atut es “ are e nf or ceab le th ro ug h apri va te fed eral RICO ac ti on .” Ayres , 23 4 F .3dat 5 19 n.8 (ci ti ng 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 61 (1 )(B) , 19 62 , 19 64 (c)) . Our co nc lu si onin Ayre s –t ha t Co ng res s h adpro vi de d apri va te rig htof a ct io n fo r in di vi du al s i nju redby feder al m ai l an d wi re fraudcri m es –i s ev id en ce tha t the co ng res si on al ly m an da te d juris di ct io na l b al an ce b etweenfed eral an d s ta te co urts supp orte d afin di ng of ju ris di ct io n i n t ha t ca se . Suc h e vi de nc e is la ck in g i n t he pre se ntcas e. IV. CONCLUSION Fo r th e rea so ns setforthab ov e, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l of th e p la in ti ffs ’ m ot io n t o re m an d m eri ts rev ers al . Accor di ng ly, we rev ers e th e di st ric t co urt’s o rd er an d re m an d t hi s ca se to th e d is tri ctco urt wi th in st ru ct io ns to rem an d the cas e to th e st at e co urt fr om whi ch itwas re m ov ed . REVERSED AND REMANDED.

29