FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T DECEMBER 7, 20 10 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 41 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 4 :0 9- cv -1 00 30 -J LK

PETER HALMOS, PAH CO.,

Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,

ve rs us

BOMARDI ER AEROSPACE CORP .,
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee,

LEGAL SERVICES P .C., ROBERT M. GREENBERG,

Defen da nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 7, 2 01 0)

Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON, and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Pl ai nt iff Pet er Halm os su ed Bo m ard ie r Aero sp ace Co rp or at io n (“ Bo m ard ie r”)

fo r m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on fo ll owi ng t h e c on cl us io n of a Dall as Co un ty, Tex as su it

fil ed by Bo m ard ie r ag ai ns t Halm os , in di vi du al ly an d do in g bu si ne ss as PAH

Co rp o r a t i o n , an d PAH Co

. Halm os co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in

di sm is si ng hi s cl ai m

for m al ic io us pro se cu ti on . W e reject th is co nt en ti on

.

At th e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 12 (b )(6 ) st ag e, we “ pr im ari ly co ns id er th e al le ga ti on s in

th e c o mp l a i n t , ” b ut “ [t]he co ur t is no t [al way s] li m it ed to th e fo ur co rn ers of th e

co m pl ai nt .” Lo ng v. Sl at on , 50 8 F.3 d 57 6, 57 8 n.3 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.
W e ha ve he ld th at a di st ric t co ur t m ay ta ke jud ic ia l no ti ce of m at te rs of pu bl ic reco rd

wit ho ut co nv ert in g a Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n in to a Ru l e 56 m ot io n. Se e Brya nt v.

Ava do Bra nd

s, In c., 18 7 F.3 d 1 27 1, 1 27 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) ; se e al so Tel la bs , I

nc . v

.
Mak or Is su es & Rig ht

s, Lt d. , 55 1 U.S. 30 8, 32 2, 12 7 S. Ct

. 24 99 , 25 09 (2 00 7)
(“ co ur ts m

us t co ns id er th e c o mp l a in t in it s en ti ret y , as well as ot he r so ur ces co ur ts

or di na ril y ex am in e whe n ru li ng on Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io ns to di smi s s , i n pa rti cu la r,

do cu m en ts in co rp or at ed in to th e co m pl ai nt by refe ren ce, an d m at te rs of whi ch a co ur t

m ay tak e jud ic ia l n ot ic e.”).

In or de r to ad eq ua te ly al le ge m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on of a ci vi l cl a i m , th e
pl ai nt iff m

us t es ta bl is h: (1 ) a jud i c i a l pr oc eed in g ag ai ns t th e pr es en t pl ai nt iff was

2co m

m en ced or co nt in ue d; (2 ) th e pr es en t de fen d a n t f il ed th e or ig in al pr oc eed in g

ag ai ns t th e pr es en t pl ai nt i f f as th e de fen da nt in th e or ig in al pr oc eed in g; (3 ) th e

t e r mina ti on of th e or ig in al pr oc eed in g was in fav or of th e pr es en t pl ai nt iff ; ( 4 )

ab se nc e of

pro ba bl e cau se fo r th e or ig in al pr oc eed in g; (5 ) m al ic e on th e pa rt of th e

pr es en t de fen da nt ; an d (6 ) th e pl ai nt iff su ffer ed da m a g e a s a res ul t of th e or ig in al

pr oc eed in g. Ala mo Ren t-A- Ca r, In c. v. Man cu si , 63 2 So

. 2d 13 52 , 13 55 (Fl a. 19 94 )
(ci ti ng Bur ns v. GCC Beve ra ge s, In c. , 50 2 S o. 2 d 1 21 7 (F la . 19 86 ).

Halm os as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl or ed fo rb id de n te rri to ry whe n ru li ng

on Bo m ard ie r’s m ot io n to di sm is s. W e di sa gr ee. The di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n

di d no t ex ceed th e pe rm is si bl e sc op e of a 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n to di sm is s - th e co m pl ai nt ,

at ta ch m en ts to th e co m

pl ai nt , an d m at te rs of pu bl ic reco rd

. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d

th at “ Halm os was th e in di vi du al own er of PAH Co .,” “ he s i g n e d n um ero us

do cu m en ts , in cl ud in g th e rel ev an t Agr eem en ts , on th e co m pa ny’ s be ha lf,” an d he

“ ad m it te dl y u se d th e ai rcra ft fo r pe rs on al reas on s.” (R.2 -5 5 at 5.) All of th is

in fo rm at io n was co nt ai ne d in Halm os ’s Am en de d Co m pl ai nt an d it s a t t a c h m en ts

. (R.1 -4 at 5 ¶ 17 ; at 8- 10 ¶¶ 27 -3 1; at 17 ¶ 43 ; Exs

. 3- 6.) The di st ric t co ur t rel ie d up on

un di sp ut ed fact s of pu bl ic reco rd , in cl ud in g th e un di sp ut ed fact th at Halm os di d no t

fil e a m ot io n to d i s mi s s du rin g th e fo ur -y ear Tex as la wsu it , t ha t he fil ed in di vi du al

c o u n te rcl ai m s in hi s na m e in th e Tex as la wsu it , an d th at on e wou ld no t kn ow th e

3pr op er de fen da nt to su e as th ere was no en ti ty cal le d “ PAH Co rp or at io n” in ex is te nc e

in Fl or id a at th e t i me th e Tex as la wsu it was fil ed

. (R.2 -5 5 at 5.) The di st ric t co ur t

us ed th is in fo rm at io n to co nc lu de th at Halm os ’s Am en de d Co m pl ai nt was “ de fic ie nt

in fai li ng to al le ge th e cri ti cal el em en t th at [Bo m ard ie r ] l ack ed pr ob ab le cau se in

in st it ut in g an d pu rs ui ng an act io n ag ai ns t Halm os [in hi s in di vi du al cap aci ty] .” ( Id

. )

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in co ns id eri ng m at te rs of pu bl ic reco rd th at wen t be y on d

th e sc op e o f Hal m os ’s com pl ai nt to reac h t hi s co nc lu si on

.
Hal m os al so co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pe rm is si bl y he ld th at he ha d

waiv ed hi s m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on cl ai m by fai li ng to fil e a m o t i o n to di sm is s, a

m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, or by fil in g co un te rcl ai m s in th e Tex as la wsu it

.
Halm os m is read s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r. It is cl ear fro m read in g th e or de r th at th e

co ur t si m pl y lo ok ed at th e rec or d o f th e Tex as laws ui t i n c on si de rin g th e to ta li ty o f

th e un di sp ut ed f

a c t s su rro un di ng whe th er Bo m ard ie r ha d pr ob ab le cau se to ei th er

co m m en ce or co nt in ue a su it ag ai ns t Halm os in hi s in di vi du al cap aci ty. The di st ric t

co ur t co nc lu de d th at al l t he fact s t ak en to ge th er d efea te d Hal m os ’s a bi li ty t o al le ge

Bo m ard ie r’s la ck of pr ob ab le cau se

. Thi s was pr o p e r

. Co ns eq ue nt ly, we fin d no

erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of Halm os ’s m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on cl ai m ag ai ns t

Bo m ard ie r.

AFFIR MED.

4