[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15303

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-00240-WKW-SRW

LAND VENTURES FOR 2, LLC, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

MICHAEL AARON FRITZ, SR., 

FRITZ, HUGHES & HILL, LLC, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________

(August 29, 2016)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-15303 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Land Ventures for 2, LLC, appeals the summary judgment against its 

complaint that Michael Aaron Fritz Sr., and his law firm, Fritz, Hughes & Hill, 

LLC, committed legal malpractice under the Alabama Legal Services Liability 

Act, Ala. Code § 6–5–570 et seq. Land Ventures retained Fritz to assist it in 

obtaining relief under the Bankruptcy Code, but it sued Fritz after its petition for 

bankruptcy was converted involuntarily from a Chapter 11 proceeding to a Chapter 

7 proceeding and its assets were liquidated. The district court ruled that Land 

Ventures failed to prove that, but for Fritz’s conduct, “the bankruptcy proceeding 

would have resolved more favorably.” After careful review, we affirm.

We review de novo a summary judgment and view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party. Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co. v. 

Thompson, 802 F.3d 1248, 1252 (11th Cir. 2015). Summary judgment is 

appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Land Ventures challenges the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the 

bankruptcy court, but we do not review its assessment of the action. Land Ventures 

does not dispute that its civil action was not a core proceeding but was related to its 

bankruptcy case. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). As required under section 157(c)(1), 

the district court reviewed de novo the proposed findings and conclusions that 

Land Ventures failed to prove that it suffered damages, that there was a causal 

Case: 15-15303 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Page: 2 of 4 
3

connection between its injury and Fritz’s conduct, and that Fritz breached the 

applicable standard of care. See id. And the district court “arriv[ed] at an 

independent judgment,” Matter of Ferris, 764 F.2d 1475, 1478 (11th Cir. 1985), 

that Land Ventures failed to prove the element of causation. Because the district

court, by entering final judgment, 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), “made the only decision

there is for us to review,” In re Rasbury, 24 F.3d 159, 166 (11th Cir. 1994), we will 

not consider the argument of Land Ventures about errors committed by the 

bankruptcy court.

Land Ventures argues that a genuine dispute existed about whether Fritz 

misrepresented that he was an expert in Chapter 11 bankruptcy practice, but this 

issue is not properly before us. “To prevail on a particular theory of liability, a 

party must present that argument to the district court.” Fils v. City of Aventura, 647 

F.3d 1272, 1284 (11th Cir. 2011). Land Ventures alleged in paragraphs 141 and 

150 of its complaint that Fritz failed to perform twelve actions, “each of [which] 

. . . constitute[d] a breach of the applicable standard of care for a licensed legal 

services provider.” But nowhere in that list is an allegation that Fritz 

misrepresented his level of expertise. We will not consider a theory of liability that 

Land Ventures failed to raise in the district court.

The district court did not err by entering summary judgment in favor of 

Fritz. Expert testimony is required generally to establish that a legal services 

Case: 15-15303 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Page: 3 of 4 
4

provider has deviated from the applicable standard of care. Tonsmeire v. AmSouth 

Bank, 659 So. 2d 601, 605 (Ala. 1995). The district court struck the expert 

proffered by Land Ventures, and the company does not challenge that adverse 

ruling on appeal. Fritz submitted an affidavit and testimony from an attorney who 

practiced in the bankruptcy courts in Alabama that established Fritz did not breach 

the standard of care. Without an expert to create a genuine factual dispute about the 

adequacy of Fritz’s representation, Fritz was entitled to summary judgment. See 

Green v. Ingram, 794 So. 2d 1070, 1072 (Ala. 2001). 

We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Fritz.

Case: 15-15303 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Page: 4 of 4