FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UL Y 3, 2008 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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. 08- 1003 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 07-00453 -CV -3-RV NO VENT A O CHO LL C, aF l o r i d aLi mi t e dLi ab i l i t y C o mp a n y, Pl ai nti ff -C ount er D ef en da ntAppellee,
ve rs us PBD PRO PE RT IE S L LC , aTe n n e s s e e Li mi t e dLi ab i l i t y C o mp a n y, D ef en da nt- Co unt er

Cl ai m an tA ppe llant, W IL LI AM E . P IT TS , D ef en da nt- A ppe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (J ul y 3, 200 8)Nov ent a fi ledit s o ri ginal com pl ain t i n t he C ir cui t Co urt for Oka lo os a C ou nt y , Fl ori da. P BD 1 and Pitt s f ile d a no tic e of re mov a l, al le g ing that di ve rs ity jur isd ic tio n e xiste d b e c a

us e the y we re bo th citizens of Tenne ssee, and Noventa was a citizen of Florida an dC al ifornia. See R olling Greens MHP, L.P. v

. Comcast SCH Holdings , LLC , 374 F .3 d 1 02 0, 10 22 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 4) (h old ingthat a limit ed liability

company is a citiz en of any state of which a member of the c ompany

is a citizen). Th e pa rt ie s do no t c ha lle ng e , and we fi nd no c le ar e rr or in, the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n th a t bo th Pitt s and PBD a

re c itiz ens of Te nnessee . Thus diversity jurisdiction is proper. 2 Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK , a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T he D ef en da nt s, PB D P ro pe rt ie s, L L C and W ill ia m E
. P itt s, c ha lle nge the di stri ct c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g apr el im inary inj unc tio n inf

av or of N ove nta O ch o, LL C, which re quires PBD to pay $1,255,722.00 int o the court’ s registry or, al te rn at ive ly , f

re ez es the as se ts of PB D a nd P itt s he ld a t F if th T hir d B an k. B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt l ac ke d th e au tho ri ty to en te r thi s in

j unc tio n, w e va ca te the or de r an d
re m an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt. 1 W e re vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of pr el im inary

inj unc t ive r el ie f fo r anabuse of di sc ret io n. Rosen v. Cascade Int’l, Inc. , 21 F. 3d 1520 , 1526 n.11 (11th Cir. 1994).

“ [B ] ut i f the c ourt m is appli ed the law in m ak ing it s de ci sio n w e do n ot d ef er to its legal analy sis.” Id

. ( quot ing G uar. F

in. Se rv . , I

nc . v . R ya n , 928 F. 2d 9 94, 998 ( 11th Cir. 1991 )). T he dis tr ic t c ourt l ac ke d th e au tho ri ty to en te r thi s in

jun ct ionbe ca

use in the unde rl y ing li tig at ion , N ove nta a sks onl y

f or da m ag es , a le ga l r em edy . I n it sAf te r t he dis tr ic t court e nte re d the inj un c tio n, No ve nta fi le d a sec on d ame nd e d c omp la int
. 2 For purposes of this appe al, we c onsider whe ther the district co u rt h ad t he author ity to enter the i n j u n c t i o no nt h e b a s i s o f

t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t f

i l e d i nth e C i r c u i tC o urtf

o r O k a l o o s a

C o u n ty, Florida
. See R osen , 21 F.3d at 1524 n.5. I n Rosen , w e re fu se d to c on ve rt a le g a l c a us e of a c tio n int o a le g iti mate c la im f or e qu ita ble 3 r e l i e f b a s e d o n a b o i l e r

p l a t e r e qu e s t f

o r “ j u s t an d a p p r o p r i a t e ” r e l i e f

. 2 1 F
. 3 d a t 1 5 2 6 n . 1 2
. S i m i l ar l y, we re fu se to c on str

ue No ve nta ’s c omp la int

a s se e kin g e qu ita

ble re lie f s imp ly be c a

us e it i nc lud e s a claim for a ll “fair a

nd equitable” relief

. 3 com plaint, Noventa asks for dam ages and “ any o t her re lief this hon orable Court

2 deem s fa i r an d eq u itable.” (R. 1-1, E x. 1 at 6. ) O ur holdin g in Rosen forecloses an in jun ct io n i n t hi s s it ua ti on . Rosen inv olv ed a n act ion fo r m one y da m ag es a ri sin g ou t of a ser i es o f allegedly

fra udul ent securities transactions. W e vacate d the district
co urt’ s or de r gr an tin g apr el im inary inj unc tio n f re ez ing the de fe ndant’ s a sse ts, say ing unequi vocally

that “ a district court lacks the authority to issu e a pre li m inary in jun ct io n fr eezi ng th e as se ts of a de fen da nt in a cas e se ek in g o nl y m on ey da m ag es .” 21 F.3d at 1 53 1. Be cau se Nov en ta see ks on ly dam ag es , Rosen gov er ns. 3 The $1, 255,722 .00 w hich Noventa seeks to recov er r epresents nothi ng m ore t h a n a p o rt i o n o f t h e c o n t ra ct p u rc h as e p ri ce wi t h h el db y PB D, w i t h No v en t a’s
co nse nt, to sa tis fy

the le tte r of

c re dit r equir em en t. N ove nta ’ s r em edy —w hic h is ad equa te a t l aw

—i s to sue f

or th e un paid p ortio n of

the c ontra ct

pr ic e. I n f

ac t, Noventa has done j ust that, and its claim s for fr audulent m isrepresentation and breach of c ontra ct a re pe ndi ng b ef

or e the dis tr ic t c ourt.“A feder al court sitti ng in diversity is require d to apply state subs tantive law . . . .” Burke 4 v . S mi th , 252 F.3d 1260, 1265 ( 11th Cir. 2001). 4 T he inj unc tio n is al so im

pr ope r be ca

use the re ar e no s pe ci fi c an d id en tif ia ble funds. Under Florida law , “ injuncti v e re lief [is] appropriate to protect the res in a 4 claim for a constructive trust.” Blec her v. Drey fus B rokerage Servs., Inc. , 770 So
. 2d 1276 , 1277 (F la
. D ist
. Ct
. App. 200 0) ; G a. B ank ing Co

. v. G

M C Le ndi ng & M

ort gage Se rv s. , Co rp. , 923 S o. 2d 1 224, 1225 (F la
. D ist
. Ct
. A pp. 2006 ) (“ In j unc tiv e re lie f is ap pr opr ia te to pr ev en t dis sip at ionof
. . . spe ci fi c, ide nti fi ab le tr ust f unds
. ”)
. U nli ke the se c as es —w hic h inv olv e co nstru ct ive tr ust s ov er spe ci fi c funds—

ne ith er the F ir st A m en dm en t t o P ur ch as e an d S al e A gr ee m en t ( “ A m en dm en t” ), N ove nta ’ s c om pla int , nor it s m oti on for

a pr el im inary

inj unc tio n id en tif

ie s sp ec if ic f unds
. R athe r, the Am endm ent specifies how m uch m oney PBD m ay

withhold from

the purchase price, th e co m pla int a sks f or “ da m ag es , ” an d th e inj unc tio n or de rs P itt s and P BD “ not to with d ra w, d raw , or m ove anyfun ds, ass et s or c ollate ral

nowloc at ed

in the F if

th Third Bank . .
. .” (R. 2-56 at 2-3) (em phasis add ed). N oventa’ s identification o f a specific am ount

of m one y to w hic h i t cl ai m s e nti tle m en t do es not r el ie ve it of the ob li ga ti on to sh ow t he ex is te nc e o f sp eci fic fun ds subjec t t o a n i nju nc ti on . The f inal problem with the injunction is th at is applies to Pitt’s a ssets. Pitts wa s not apa rty to the P ur ch as e an d S al e A gr ee m en t ( “ A gr ee m en t” ) or the A m en dm en t.I f N ov e nta is e nti tle d to any

re lie f, it l ike ly mus t re ly on F e d. R. C iv. P. 6 4 to ob ta in i t. R ule 5 64 provides the mec hanism by which a pa

rty may secur e pre

judgmen t attachment of

a potential judgme nt debtor’s a ssets. Rule 64 explains t hat the state’ s attachme nt rules apply to the extent the fede ral rule s do not. A nd, the state of F lorida, like most states, has ena cted de tailed rules g overning prejudg ment writs of attac hments. See ge nerally F la . St at. § § 7 6. 01 –. 25 ; Frasher v. Fox Distrib. of Sw. Fla., Inc. , 813 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. D ist. Ct . App. 2002) (disc ussing pr ejudg ment attachme nt). 5 Pitts sign ed both th e A greem ent and the Am endm ent, but only in h i s capacity

as
m anager of P BD. N oventa has no t poin ted us to a determ ination by any court that Pi tts is the a lte r eg o of

P BD or tha t he sho uld

be he ld p er sona lly

li ab le t hr ough the pi erci ng of P BD’s co rp or at e v ei l. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g apr el im inary inj unc tio n is v ac at ed

a nd the
ac tio n is r em an de d to the dis tr ic t co urt fo r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. 5 VACATED AN D REMANDED.