FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 18, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 71 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 9- cv -0 16 18 -MS S-DAB

TANYA T ENNYSON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us ASCAP, (Am eri can So ci ety

of C om po se rs , Autho rs & Publ is he rs ), THE HARRY FOX AGENCY, INC., THE ROYALT Y NETW ORK, MPL COM MUNICATIONS, UNIVERSAL MUSIC GR OUP INC., et a l., 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 18 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, HULL, andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Tan y a Ten nyso n, p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f he r am en de d c om

pl ai ntag ai ns t s ev eral de fen da nt s, i nc lu di ng th e Am eri can So ci ety of C om po se rs , Autho rs & Publ is he rs ; Th e Harry Fox Agen cy , Inc .; Th e Ro y al ty N etwork; MPL Co m m un ic at io ns ; Un iv ers al Mu si c Gro up , Inc .; Warne r Mu si c Gro up Co rp .; So ny Mus ic Ent ert ai nm en t; an d EM I Mu si c Publ is hi ng (co ll ect iv el y , th e d efen da nt s)
. She co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby 1
co nc lu di ng th atsh e la ck edst an di ng , andsh e al so ch al le ng es th e co urt’s al te rn at iv e ho ld in g t ha t s he fai le d t o s ta te a cl ai m forfrau d, co pyrig htin fri ng em en t, o r br each of co nt ract . I. Acco rd in g t o Ten nyso n’s am en de d c om pl ai nt , herfathe r W il li am “ Bi ll ” Ten nyso n, J r., was a s on gwr it er wh o h ad“ co nt ract s wi th nu m ero us m us ic publ is he rs inNew YorkCit y ” b efo re h is de ath i n 1 95 9. Tenn y so n’s am en de d 2
co m pl ai ntcla im s tha t the de fen da nt s “ co m m it te d a nt it ru stact iv it y

ag ai ns t the
es ta te ” o f he r fat he r. Am on g o th er thi ng s, s he all eg es th atth e d efen da nt s Tenny son’s amende d complaint lists additional defe ndants, but she did not serve them with 1 proce ss. “[I ]n re viewing motions to dismiss we acc ept as true the fac ts stated in the complaint and

2 all rea sonable infere nces” derive d from those fac ts. J ackson v. Okaloosa Cnty ., Fla., 21 F.3d 1531, 1534 (11th Cir. 1994). 2co ns pi redto di ve rt h er fath er’s ro y al ty earni ng s fr om “hi s s uc ces so rs ” an d t ha t th ey bre ach ed“ so ng writ ers co nt ract s” to av oi d p ay in g t he royalt ie s t o t he
su cces so rs . She cla im s tha t the de fen da nt s en ga ge d i n c op y rig htin fri ng em en t an d th atth ey “ co ns pi redag ai ns t h er s o t ha t s he wou ldno t b e ab le to reco ve r he r in he rit an ce.” Sh e se ek s $ 35 0,0 00 ,00 0 i n d am ag es . The de fen da nt s fi le d am ot io n t o d is m is s co nt en di ng th atTenn y so n l ack ed st an di ng to pu rs ue an y

cla im s o n b eh al f of

he r fat he r’s es ta te an d t ha t s he fai le d t o st at e a cl ai m

forrel ie f. The d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atTenn y so n’s am en de d
co m pl ai ntall eg edin

jury onl y to Bil l Ten nyso n’s es ta te . The co urt n ot edth at Ten nyso n d idno t cl ai m

th atsh e was th e es ta te ’s per so na l re pr es en ta ti ve or t ha t sh e h adan y

st an di ng to rep res en t the est at e in co urt. As ares ul t s he ha d n o st an di ng to ass ertcla im s o n the est at e’s be ha lf. Th e co urt al so rul edth atsh e la ck edst an di ng to ass erta ci vi l cl ai m ag ai ns t the de fen da nt s fo r vi ol at in g fe de ral
an ti tru stlaws . Fin al ly, th e d is tri ctco urt h el d u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ) th atTenn y so n’s am en de d c om pl ai ntfai le d t o s ta te an y

cla im s,
an d h er v ag ue an d c on cl us ory an ti tru stan d fr au d a ll eg at io ns fai le d t o c om pl y with Ru le (9) (b ). Thi s i s Ten nyso n’s ap pe al
. II. W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l fo r ei th er l ackof s ub ject
3m at te r juri sd ic ti onun de r Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(1 ) orfor fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m
un de r Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(6 ). Ch ris ti anCo al . of Fl a., In c. v. Un it edSta te s, 6 62 F.3 d 1 18 2, 1 18 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) ; Ca tro n v . City of S t. Pe te rs bu rg , 65 8 F .3d12 60 , 12 64 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). W e al so rev ie w de n ov o que st io ns of l aw, Keet on v. And ers on -Wiley, 664 F.3d86 5, 8 68 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ), an d i ss ue s o f co ns ti tu ti on al st an di ng , Flo rid a ex rel . Atty . Gen. v . U.S. Dept . of Hea lt h & Hum anServ s . , 64 8 F.3 d 1 23 5, 1 24 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1)
. W e li be ral ly con st ru e p ro se p le ad in gs , Alb ra v . Adv an , Inc ., 49 0 F .3d82 6, 82 9 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 7) , andpro se b rie fs , Tim so n v . Sam ps on , 51 8 F .3d87 0, 8 74 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Buta pr o s e p arty m us t “ fo ll ow the rul es of p ro cedur e an d
ev id en ce, an d t he di stric t co urt h as no du ty to ac t as [he r] lawy er.” Un it edSta te s v. Ly , 64 6 F .3d13 07 , 13 15 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. III. Inhe r br ie f to th is Co urt Ten nyso n c on te nd s tha t h er fa m il y m em be rs , who
are n otpa rti es to th is ap pe al , hav e m is ha nd le d h er fa th er’s es ta te : The Pla in ti ff was furth er s ho ck edto fin d tha t h er b ro th er wh o h ad be engi ve n p owe r of

att orne y as p ro xy adm in is tra to r of he r fat he r, Bi ll Tenn y so n’s es ta te , by ag reem en t o f he r ot he r br othe r, he r si st er an d h er m ot he r, ha d p ro ceed edto rep res en t the “ Ten nyso n fa m il y ” witho utno ti fy in g h er, k eep in g a ll in fo rm at io n s ecre t fr om th e Pl ai nt iff . Decis io ns were m ad e b y th e Pl ai nt iff’s bro th er an d t he res t of th e “ Ten nyso n F am il y ” th atadve rs el y affe ct edth e Pl ai nt iff

, Tanya
4Ten nyso n b ecau se th ey ha d re ach edso m e type o f sa ti sf act ory ag reem en t am on gs t the m se lv es , bu t re fu se d t o d is cu ss Bil l Ten nyso n’s m

us ic with t he Pla in ti ff Tan y a Ten nyso n a t al l, wh il e th e Pl ai nt iff’s m ot he r an d b ro th er s ha redin fo rm at io n abo utBil l Ten nyso n a ndhi s m

us ic with t he Pla in ti ff’s d au gh te r in st ead
. App el la ntBr. at2. Ten nyso n a rg ue s tha t s he ha s s ta nd in g t o b rin g t hi s l aws ui t be cau se : The Pla in ti ff’s Fathe r’s m us ic al “pr op ert ie s” are p art ia ll y own edby Pl ai nt iff th ro ug h i nh eri ta nc e. If th e “ adm in is tra to r (Pl ai nt iff’s m ot he r) an d h er p ro xy (Plai nt iff ’s bro th er) fa il edor d idno t wan t t o actinbe ha lf o f Bi ll Tenn y so n’s “ es ta te ”, an d/ orex cl ud edPla in ti ff, it is th e Pl ai nt iff’s res po ns ib il it y an d ri gh t t o c la im

co m pe ns at io n fo r pe rs on al da m ag es cau se d b y th e d efen da nt s, an d t o a ctinm y own be ha lf i n asep arat e cas e to co ll ectm y sh are o f m

y Fathe r’s in co m e, whi chis whatI have do ne .” Id . at 6 . The al le ga ti on s tha t Ten nyso n m ak es on he r own be ha lf a re b as edon he r di sp ut e wit h h er fa m il y

m em be rs ov er h ow the est at e sh ou ldbe adm in is te redan d di vi de d, b utno ne of h er fa m il y m em be rs are d efen da nt s. Her cl ai m s ag ai ns t the de fen da nt s ar e b as edon th e al le ga ti on th atth e d efen da nt s caus edth e es ta te of h er fathe r to su fferda m ag es . Onl y a real party in i nt eres t h as th e cap aci ty to b rin g alaws ui t. See Fed . R. Ci v. P. 1 7( a), (b ). The p ur po se of t ha t ru le “ is to en ab le th e d efen da ntto av ai l 3
As the Tenth Circuit has e x plained: 3 Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 17 g overn s b o th the deter mination of a party ’s cap ac i ty to sue and be sued and his or her status as the rea l party in interest. T h e “re al party in interest” principle require s that an action “be brought in the name of the 5hi m se lf o f ev id en ce an d d efen se s tha t the de fen da ntha s ag ai ns t the real pa rty in

in te res t, an d t o a ss ur e h im fin al it y of t he jud gm en t, an d t ha t h e wil l b e p ro te ct ed ag ai ns t an ot he r su itbro ug htby the real pa rty at in te res t o n t he same m at te r.” Cel an es e Co rp . of Am . v. J oh n C la rkIndus ., 21 4 F .2d55 1, 5 56 (5t h C ir. 1 95 4)
. 4

“ The cap aci ty doc tri ne rel at es to th e is su e o f a p arty ’s per so na l ri gh t t o l it ig at e in a fed eral co urt,” Gl ic ks te in v. Su n B an k/ Mi am i, N.A., 92 2 F .2d66 6, 6 70 (11 th Cir
. 19 91 ), ab ro ga te d o n o th er g ro un ds by Sax to n v . ACF In du s., In c., 25 4 F .3d95 9, 96 3 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 1) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. To d et erm in e whe th er Ten nyso n h as th e cap aci ty to b rin g t hi s l aws ui t, we lo okto th e la w of t he st at e whe re the fed eral di st ric t co urt s it s, wh ic h i s Fl or id a. See i d. Un de r Fl or id a la w th e o nl y pa rty who h as th e cap aci ty to s ue on be ha lf o f
anest at e is th e dul y

ap po in te d l eg al rep res en ta ti ve of t he est at e. See B rak e v . Mu rp hy, 687 So . 2d84 2, 8 43 (Fl a. 3dDCA 19 96 ); s ee al so Fla . Sta t. An n. § § 73 3.6 07 (1 ). Tenn y so n c on ced es inhe r br ie f to th is Co urt tha t s he is no t the pe rs on al rep res en ta ti ve of h er fa th er’s es ta te . Ins te ad , sh e ref ers to he r m ot he r as

party who possesses the substantive right be ing asser ted under the applicable law.” Esposito v. United States, 368 F.3d 1271, 1273 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting 6A C h arle s A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary

Kay Kane , Fe dera l Practice and Proce dure § 1541 at 321 (2d ed.1990))
. In Bonne r v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc) , we adopted 4 as binding prec edent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down befor e October 1, 1981. 6th e ad m in is tra to r, App el la ntBr. at6, an d t o h er b ro th er as th e “pr ox y

adm in is tra to r” o f th e es ta te , id . at 2 . She als o s he ass ert s tha t h er b ro th er “ fai le d t o pe rfo rm th e res po ns ib il it ie s o f ex ecu to rs hi p, an d s ou gh t t o m an ag e th e m us ic do m ai n o f Bi ll Tenn y so n wi th ou t re ga rdto he r” as a be ne fic iary . Id. at10
. Ten nyso n c la im s tha t the de fen da nt s caus edda m ag es to he r fat he r’s es ta te , bu t s he
can no t as se rt t ha t cl ai m

be cau se sh e is no t the real pa rty in i nt eres t. See Fed . R. Ci v. P. 1 7( a). Ten nyso n l ack s the cap aci ty to b rin g alaws ui t ag ai ns t the de fen da nt s o n b eh al f of

th e es ta te , andfor

th atreas on he r cl ai m s wer e p ro pe rly di sm is se d. 5 AFFIRMED.

The district court rea ched that conclusion by analy zing those claims in terms of standing 5 instead of c apac ity , but the result is the same. We ma y aff irm the district c ourt’s judgment on any basis supported by

the re cord. Am. United L ife Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1062 (11th Cir. 2007). 7