FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 2, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT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 1- 10 02 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 0- m c-6 03 30 -AJ
BRIDGEPOINT VENTURES, LLC, ASCENT ACQUISITIONS, LLC, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff s- App el le es ,

ve rs us PANAM MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s, JAM ES MONAHAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 2, 2 01 2)Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Ja m es Mo na ha n, t he C.E.O. of a rea l es ta te de ve lo pm en t co m pa ny, app eal s th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nf

irmatio n o f an arb it rat io n a wardag ai ns t h im an d i n fa vo r of Bri dg ep oi ntVentur es , L.L. C., (“ Bri dg ep oi nt ”) o n B rid ge po in t’s cl ai m s t ha t Mo na ha n h adst ol en m on ey fro m anesc ro w acco un t h el d p ur su an t t o areal est at e de ve lo pm en t ag reem en t b et ween Mo na ha n andBri dg ep oi nt . On ap pe al , Mo na ha n arg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on be cau se , he c la im s,
se ve ral of B rid ge po in t’s m em be rs are ci ti zen s o f New York, the same sta te as Mo na ha n, an d t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n t o v acat e th e arb it rat io n a ward
. Fed eral juri sd ic ti on fou nd edon di ve rs it y ex is ts on ly if ev ery pl ai nt iff is di ve rs e fro m

ev ery de fen da nt
. Trig gs v. J oh n C ru m p To y ot a, In c., 15 4 F .3d12 84 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). A limitedli ab il ity co m pa ny is a c it iz en of any sta te wher e
a m em be r of th e co m pa ny is a c it iz en . Rol li ng Green s M HP, LP v. Co m cas t SC H Hol di ng s, LLC, 3 74 F.3d10 20 , 10 22 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). W e rev ie w th e d is tri ct
co ur t’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs as t o apa rty’ s ci ti zen sh ip for cle ar erro r. MacGi nn it ie v. Hob bs Group, LLC, 4 20 F.3d12 34 , 12 39 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Here, i n re sp on se to anord er o f th e d is tri ctco urt, Br id ge po in t fi le d a
2de cl arat io n b y it s co un se l at te st in g tha t, atth e ti m e whe n B rid ge po in t s ue d t o
en fo rce i ts arb it rat io n a ward , all m em be rs of B rid ge po in t wer e Fl or id a ci ti zen s,
an d t ha t n on e were c it iz en s o f New York. On th e b as is of thi s d ecl arat io n, t he di st ric t co urt fo un d, an d M on ah an di d n otdi sp ut e, th atco m pl et e d iv ers it y

ex is te d. Mo na ha n a rg ue s o n app eal th atth is fin di ng was c le arl y erro ne ou s b ecau se Bri dg ep oi nt ’s “ Cert ifi cat e o f In te res te d P ers on s an d C or po rat e Dis cl os ur e St at em en t” fil edwith t hi s co urt l is te d s ev eral New Yorkres id en ts as “ vi ct im s” who he ldanin te res t i n a ny enfo rcem en t o f th e arb it rat io n a ward . This co nt en ti on do es no t i m

pu gn th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io n t ha t al l m em be rs of Bri dg ep oi ntare n on -New York c it iz en s b ecau se no ne of the in di vi du al s t o wh om Mo na ha n re fers were d es ig na te d i n B rid ge po in t’s fi li ng as m em be rs of Bri dg ep oi nt
. Mo na ha n a ls o a rg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on be cau se , he c on te nd s, Br id ge po in t’s i nv es to rs co ll us iv el y ass ig ne d t he ir c la im s t o Bri dg ep oi ntin ord er t o m an uf actur e d iv ers ity . Howev er, t hi s cl ai m
m is ch arac te riz es th e n atur e o f Bri dg ep oi nt ’s su it . In s ui ng to en fo rce t he arb it rat io n a ward , Bri dg ep oi ntdi d n ot , as M on ah an cla im s, ex erci se rig ht s
as si gn edto itby thi rdpa rti es . Ins te ad , Bri dg ep oi ntso ug htto vi nd ic at e it s ri gh ts
un de r it s co nt ractwit h M on ah an , whi ch are i ts co nt ractua l ri gh t t o a rb it rat e an d i ts
3st atut ory

rig htto en fo rce t he arb it ral awardin di st ric t co ur t. See 9 U.S.C. § 9; 2 Domke on Co m

m erci al Arbi tra ti on § 4 2.1 (3ded . 20 03 ) (“ The awardis th e la st st ep in a sp eci al co nt ractua l re la ti on sh ip be twee n t he pa rti es .”). Thu s, Bri dg ep oi nt ’s su itto en fo rce t he arb it rat io n a wardwas n ot , as M on ah an arg ue s, th e p ro du ctof c ol lu si ve ass ig nm en t o f cl ai m s b el on gi ng to ot he r pa rti es . Fi na ll y , Mo na ha n a tt em

pt s t o c ha ll en ge th e su bs ta nt iv e v al id it y of t he arb it rat or ’s fin al awardon sev eral gro un ds . Howev er, t he se cla im s wer e n otrai se d be fo re t he di st ric t co urt i n apro pe rly fil edm ot io n t o v acat e th e arb it rat or ’s award
. See Acc es s No w, Inc . v. So ut hwe stAirl in es Co ., 38 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 31 (11 th Cir
. 20 04 ) (d ecl in in g t o c on si de r cl ai m s fi rs t ra is edon ap pe al ). Mo na ha n fi le d h is
m ot io n t o v acat e th e arb it rat io n a wardin fav orof B rid ge po in t o n Dec em be r 16 , 20 10 , si x m on th s af

te r th e awardwas e nt eredon Ju ne 2, 2 01 0. Th e Fed eral Arb itrat io n Actrequi res th atan y m ot io n t o v acat e an award“ m us t b e se rv ed
. . . wit hi n t hr ee m on th s af

te r th e awardis fil edor d el iv ered
. . . .” 9 U.S.C. § 12
. 1

Monahan a

rgues that a le tter he submitted to the district court on June 29, 2010, should 1 be construe d as a timely

motion to vacate the June 2, 2010, arbitration awar d. We find this contention meritless bec ause Mona han’s letter

reque sted the district court to conside r his submissi on as his “re sponse in support of” a co-de fenda

nt’s motion to vacate the a rbitrator’ s preliminary

awa rd in favor

of B ridg epoint, which wa s entere d on Fe bruar y 18, 2010. Acc ording to Monahan’s own char acte rization of his mot ion as cha lleng ing the preliminary awa rd, this motion was untimely

beca use it was filed more than threemonths after the preliminary awa rd was e ntere d. See 9 U.S.C. § 12. There fore , we r ejec t Monahan’s a rgument that his J une 29 letter should be construe d, contra ry to his own chara cter ization, as a motion t o vacate the fina l awar d enter ed on June 2. 4“ [A] part y 's fa il ur e to m ov e to va cat e an arb it ral awardwithi n t he th ree- m on th

li m it at io ns pe rio d b ars hi m fro m rai si ng th e al le ge d i nv al id it y of t he awardas a de fen se in op po si ti on to a m ot io n t o c on firm th e award .” Bo ot h v . Hum e Publ is hi ng , Inc ., 90 2 F .2d92 5, 9 29 n.4 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Ther efo re, b ecau se th es e arg um en ts were n otpro pe rly pres en te d t o t he di st ric t co ur t i n ati m el y m ot io n, we do no t co ns id er t he m . AFFIRMED

5