FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 11, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1586 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-80704 -CV -CMA ROD RICK

CA RT ER , a . k . a . Ha r o l dTo n e y, P la int if f- Appe llant, ve rs us FRITO-LAY, INC., NABISCO, INC., W ISE FOODS, INC., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 11, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BI RC H and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appellant is an inm ate in the Florida prison sy stem . He appeals the j udgm ent the district court entered in favor of F rito Lay , I nc., a D elaw are2

co rp or at io n; Nabi sc o, In c., a New Je rs ey co rp or at io n; an d Wis e Fo od s, In c., a De laware c orporation (collectively “ the defendants”) because his com plaint failed to st at e a cl ai m

forrel ie f. The co m

pl ai nt , ori gi na ll y

fil edin Flo rid a ci rcu itco ur t, al le ge s th at

the de fe ndants w er e ne gli ge nt and s tr ic tly li ab le f or appe llant’ s in juri es , whi ch oc cu rredas ares ul t o f hi s co ns um pt io n o f th ei r pr od uc ts . Sp ec if ic al ly , the c om

pla int a lle ge s th at

he be cam e ill w itha cquir ed im m unod ef ic ie nc y sy ndr om e (“ A ID S” ) in 1 997; that he ha d c onsum ed the de fe ndants ’ pr oduc ts s inc e 1993 ; tha t he be gan e xpe ri en ci ng “ sic kne sse s of the ty pe usu al ly

or c om m onl y a ttr ibu ta ble to inf ec tio us c ondi tio ns . . . w hil e co nsum ing f

ood pr oduc ts . . . c ont ai nin g ba ct er iapr ote as e” that the de fe ndants m an uf actur ed . Af ter the defe ndants rem oved the case to the district court, appellant m oved the c ourt t o r em an d it

to the state c ourt. T he c ourt de nie d hi s m oti on, and thereaf ter granted the m otion s to dis m iss no w bef ore us. Appellant’ s brief pr es en ts tw o is sue s. W e ad dr es s th em in tur n. I. Ap p e l l an tc o n t e n d s th a tth e d e f e n d an t s ’ n o t i c e o f

r e mo v a l wa s u n t i mel y; thu s, the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing his m oti on t o r em an d. T he not ic e of re m ova l w as unt im el y , he say s, be ca use it w as f ile d m or e than 30 day s a ft er the3

de fe ndants r ec ei ve d th e or igi na l sum m ons an d m or e than on e y ear af te r the a ct ion co m m en ce d. Acco rd in g t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 46 (b ), The notice of r em oval of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty

day s after

the rec eipt by

the defendant, through service or oth er w ise , of ac opy of the ini tia l pl ea din g se tti ng f orth the c la im fo r re lie f uponw hic h su cha ct ionor pr oc ee din g is ba se d, or

w ith in thirty day s after

the service of summ ons up on the defendant if such ini tia l pl ea din g ha s th enbe enf ile d inc ourt and i s no t r equir ed to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter. If the c as e state d by

the ini tia l pl ea din g is not r em ova ble , anot ic e of re m ova l m ay

be f ile d w ith in thirty

day s a ft er

r ec ei pt b y

the de fe ndant, thr oughse rv ic e or

oth er w ise , of ac opy of an am en de d pl ea din g, m otion , order

or other paper f

rom which it m ay

first be asce rtained that the c as e is o ne w hic h is or ha s be co m e re m ova

ble , e xc ep t tha t a ca se m ay not be r em ove d onthe ba sis of j ur isd ic tio n c onf

er re d by se ct ion133 2 of

thi s ti tle m or e than 1 y ear af te r co m m en ce m en t of

the ac tio n. 28 U.S.C. § 1 44 6( b) . R e g ar d i n g th e 3 0 - d ay p r o v i s i o nc i t e di nth e f i r s tp ar a g r ap h , th e S up r e me Co urt ha s he ld tha t a

“ de fe ndant’ s ti m e to r em ove is tr igg er ed by sim ult an eo us se rv ic e of the sum m ons an d c om

pla int , or r ec ei pt o f the c om

pla int , ‘ thr ough se rv ic e or oth er w ise , ’ a ft er

and a part f ro m se rv ic e of

the sum m ons, but not by m ere r ecei ptof t he co m

pl ai ntun at te nd edby any

for m al ser vi ce.” M ur

ph y Bro s., In c. v. Mi ch etti Pi pe S tr ing ing , I nc . , 526 U . S. 344 , 347 -4 8, 119 S . Ct . 132 2, 132 5, 14 3 L.Ed .2d44 8 (1 99 9) .4

As fo r th e o ne -y ear l im it at io n p ro vi si on cit edin th e se co ndpa rag rap h, courts have held that it on ly applies to cases that wer e not rem ovable to federal co urt or igi na lly

f ile d. T he E igh th C ir cu it ha s no te d th at “ the r ea l qu es tio n . . . is w he the r the la st c lause of the se co nd p ar ag ra

ph o f § 14 46( b) m odi fi es onl y the se co ndpa rag rap h, o r ap pl ie s m or e b ro ad ly to b ot h p arag rap hs of t he pro vi si on ,” an d ha s he ld tha t “ ru le s of usa ge and s ta tut or

y c onstru ct ionle ad

ine vit ab ly

to the co nc lus ionthat the one -y ear lim itatio n pe ri od m odi fi es onl y the se co nd p ar ag ra

ph of § 14 46( b) , and the re fo re onl y appl ie s to c as es that w er e not r em ova ble to fe de ra l c ourt whe n or igi na lly f ile d. ” Br ow n v. T oki o M ar ine & Fi re I ns. Co . , 284 F. 3d 8 71, 873 ( 8thCi r. 200 2) ; se e al so B ad on v . R J R N ab isc o, I nc . , 224 F . 3d 382, 389 ( 5thCi r. 200 0) ; B ri er ly v. A lus uis se F le xib le P ac ka gin g, I nc . , 184 F . 3d 52 7, 5 35 (6t h C ir. 1 99 9) . To decide whether the one-y ear provisi on in th e second paragraph of § 1446 (b) applies here, we m ust first determ ine whether appellant’ s case w as rem ovable when it wa s filed. As stated in 28 U. S. C. § 133 2(a)( 1), “ [t] he district co urts s ha ll have or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n of a ll ci vil a ct ion s whe re the m atte r in co ntr ove rs y

e xc ee ds the sum

or va lue of $75 , 000, e xc lus ive of

int er es t and c ost s, and is between . . . c itizens of differe nt States.” “ A c ase fa lls within the federal dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or igi na l di ve rs ity j ur isd ic tio n on ly

if div er sity of c iti ze nshi p am ong5

the parties is com

plete, i. e. , only

if there is no pl aintiff and no defendant who are ci tiz en s of

the sam e St at e. ” W isc onsi n D ep ’ t of Co rr . v. S ch ac ht, 524 U . S. 381 , 388, 118 S.Ct. 2047 , 2052, 141 L. Ed. 2d 36 4 (1998). The def endants filed their noti ce of r em oval less than 3 0 day s after re ce ivi ng s er

vic e of the c om pla int . H en ce , the y

c om pli ed w iththe f

ir st p ar ag ra

ph of § 14 46( b) . T he c om

pla int a lle ge s dam ag es in ex ce ss o f $75, 000 an d is br ough t against citizens of differe nt states. Se e Sc hacht, 524 U. S. at 388, 118 S.C t. at 2052 . Thus, the district court had original jur isdictio n over the case, and it was re m ova ble w he n it

w as f ile d. S ee 28 U . S. C. §§ 1 332( a) (1 ), 144 6( b) . F or thi s re as on, the one -y ear lim itatio n of the se co nd p ar ag ra

ph o f § 14 46( b) is in ap pl ic ab le . II . Appe llant c ont en ds tha t the c ourt e rr ed in dis m iss ing his c om

pla int pur suant to Fed. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6) beca use (1) the com

plaint cont ained factual, scientific, an d m ed ic al sup port f

or his a lle ga tio ns, and ( 2) the dis tr ic t c ourt i nte rp re ta tio n of the f ac tua l a lle ga tio ns w er e cl earl y e rr one ous. I n r ev ie w ing am oti on t o di sm iss , w e ne ed onl y to “ ac ce pt w el l- ple ad ed

f ac ts and r ea sona

ble inf er en ce s dr awn f

ro m tho se f ac ts. G onz al ez v. Re no, 325 F . 3d 1 228, 123 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ( quot at ion s om itt ed ). “ [u ] nsup porte d c onc lus ion s of lawor of m ixe d f ac t and l aw[ do] not

to6

pr ev en t a Ru le 12( b) (6 ) dis m iss al . ” I d. ( quot at ionand a lte ratio n om itt ed ). I n a diversity action, the district court applies the law of the forum in which the court si ts . LaTorre v. Co nn . Mu t. Lif e In s. Co ., 38 F.3d53 8, 5 40 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). Be ca u s e t h i s ca s e w as fi l edi nFl o ri d a, we ap p l y Fl o ri d a l aw t o an al yze ap p el l an t ’s str ic t l ia bil ity and n eg lig en ce c la im s. A. T o e sta bli sh s tr ic t l ia

bil ity und er F lor ida law , appe llant w as r equir ed to al le ge the f

oll ow ing : ( 1) “ the m anuf ac tur er ’ s r el at ion shi p to the pr oduc t i n que sti on, ” (2 ) “ the de fe ct , ” (3 ) “ the unr ea sona bly dange ro us c ondi tio n of

the pr oduc t, ” an d ( 4) “ the e xis te nc e of apr oxi m at e ca

usa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th e co ndi tio n and the use r’ s in j ur ie s or dam ag e. ” Cl ar

k v. Bo ei ng C o. , 395 S o. 2d 1226 , 122 9 ( Fl a. 3d D CA198 1) . A s f or w ha t c onst itute s “unr ea sona bly dange ro us, ” one c ourt ha s no te d th at “ som ethin g whic h is inh er en tly dange ro us m ust be so i m m ine ntl y dange ro us i n ki nd a s to im pe ri l the li fe or

li m b of any pe rs on who u se s it . ” S ei tz v. Z ac S m ith& Co . , I nc . , 500 S o. 2d 7 06, 710 ( Fl a. 1st DCA1987 ). T he c om pla int a lle ge s th at

the de fe ndants ’ pr oduc ts w er e “ unr ea sona bly dange ro us, ” be ca

use the pr oduc ts c ont ai ne d “pr ote as e, ” but doe s no t pr es en t a fa ct ua l ba sis f

or thi s a lle ga tio n. T ha t i s, the c om pla int pr es ents n o in fo rm at ion7

be y ond the a lle ga tio n th at “pr ote as e” a ct ua lly is dange ro us, or

that a ppe llant’ s consum ption of “protease” ca

used harm . No fa cts are alleged to sup port ap pe llant’ s c ont en tio n th at “pr ote as e” a ct

ua lly w as use d inthe de fe ndants ’ products. In fine, appellant’ s unsupported conclu sions are insufficient to preclude a Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) di sm is sa l. B . InF lor ida , “ [i ] n or de r to e sta bli sh n eg lig en ce , [ the pla int if fs ] m ust pr ove the ex ist en ce of

aduty to pr ote ct

the m , abr ea chof

that du ty , and i nj ur

y sus ta ine d a s a pr oxi m at e ca

use of the br ea ch . ” Cl ar

k, 395 S o. 2d at 12 28. Inhis c om

pla int , appe llant, w ho s uf fe rs f ro m A ID S, a tte m

pte d to sho w ca usatio n by

a lle gin g th at

he be gan e xpe ri en ci ng “ sic kne sse s of the ty pe usu al ly

or co m m onl y a ttr ibu ta ble to inf ec tio us c ondi tio ns . . . w hil e co nsum ing f ood pr oduc ts . . . con ta in in g b act eri a p ro te as e” t ha t wer e m an uf actur edby the de fen da nt s. He pr es en ts no f

ac tua l ba sis , how ev er , to supp ort hi s c la im that hi s il lne ss w as the re sul t of his c onsum

pti on o f the de fe ndants ’ pr oduc ts, r athe r than ar es ult of the AIDS vi ru s i ts el f. W e fi ndno ba si s fo r se tt in g a si de th e d is tri ctco ur t’s jud gm en t. AFFIRMED.