FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 10, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT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 0- 12 17 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -2 17 23 -KMM VALENT INE B. ANDEL A, (Can cer- Afri ca), ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff –Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNIVERSITY OF MIAM I, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s–App el le es .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 10 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Vale nt in e B. And el a, pr o s e , su edth e Uni ve rs ity of M ia m i (M ia mi), wh erehe on ce was a stud en t an d re se arch er, an d t he Uni ve rs ity of No rth Caro li na (UNC), wh ic h h ada res earc h re la ti on sh ip with t he lab wher e And el a worke d a t Mi am i. An de la ’s com

pl ai ntall eg es a nu m

be r of cau se s o f act io ns fro m

st at e la w co nt ractcla im s t o the Lanh am Act, b utforth e m os t p artth ey all cen te r on hi s em pl oym en t, re se arch , andstud ie s atMi am i. Inres po ns e to And el a’s co m pl ai nt , Mia m i an d UNC fi le d m ot io ns to di sm is s, wh ic h the di st ric t co urt co nv ert edinpa rt t o m ot io ns for su m m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Mi am i o n And el a’s em

pl oym en t cl ai m s b ecau se itfou ndth atth ey were b arre d b y

res jud ic at a. The d is tri ctco urt al so fou ndth atUNC was en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t o n An de la ’s Titl e VII cl ai m s b ecau se itwas n otAnd el a’s em pl oyer. The di st ric t co urt d is m is se d An de la ’s rem ai ni ng fed eral cla im s fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . The d is tri ctco urt re fu se d t o e xe rci se pe nd en t juris di ct io n o ve r And el a’s rem ai ni ng st at e cl ai m s an d d is m is se d t he m witho utpre

jud ic e. And el a ap pe al s an d a sk s u s t o re so lv e th ree i ss ue s. Fi rs t, wh ethe r th e di st ric t ju dg e sh ou ldha ve recu se d h im se lf. Se co nd , whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt sh ou ldha ve gra nt edsu m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e d efen da nt s. An d l as t, whe th er the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e g ran te d An de la ’s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n. Be cau se we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctjud ge sh ou ldno t h av e 2recu se d h im se lf, andth athe pro pe rly rend eredsu m m ary jud gm en t o n An de la ’s em pl oym en t cl ai m s an d p ro pe rly dis m is se d h is rem ai ni ng cla im s, we af firm . W e al so co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly den ie d An de la ’s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n. I. The d is tri ctjud ge ’s dec is io n n otto recu se W e fi rs t ad dr es s An de la ’s arg um en t tha t the di st ric t ju dg e sh ou ldha ve recu se d. We revi ew th e d is tri ctjud ge ’s dec is io n n otto recu se forab us e o f di sc ret io n. In re Wal

ker , 53 2 F .3d13 04 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). And el a’s m ot io n fo r rec us al is ba se d o n the di st ric t co urt’s Se pt em be r 29 th or de r di sm is si ng th e cas e wit ho utpre jud ic e b ecau se th e p art ie s h adfai le d t o fi le a joi ntsch edul in g re po rt. Earl ie r, th e d is tri ctco urt h adgra nt eda m ot io n e xt en di ng th e ti m e to fil e a joi ntsch edul in g re po rt u nt il th e ear li er o f Oct ob er 3 0 o r 10 da y s aft er the di stric t co urt ru le d o n the de fen da nt s’ m ot io ns to di sm is s. As of Sep te m be r 29 , th e d is tri ctco urt h adno t ru le d o n t he m ot io ns to di sm is s. Aft er the di st ric t co urt d is m is se d the cas e, th e d efen da nt s s ou gh t cl ari fic at io n o f th e Sep te m be r 29 ord er. On Oct ob er 1 5, the di stric t co urt re al iz editha d p rem atur el y di sm is se d the cas e an d re op en edit . The o rig in al Octo be r 30 de ad li ne for fil in g the sc he du li ng rep ort was res to red . On Se pt em

be r 29 , th e d efen da nt s fi le d asch edul in g re po rt o n b eh al f of 3th em se lv es , as the de fen dant s an d An de lawere unabl e to ag ree abo utth e in cl us io n

of cert ai n s ta te m en ts And el a wis he d t o i nc lu de inth e sc he du li ng rep ort. Aft er the de fen da nt s fi le d the ir s ch edul in g re po rt, An de lafil eda m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s. Th e di st ric t co urt d en ie d An de la ’s m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s an d o rd eredhi m to fil e a sc he du li ng rep ort wi th in 10 da y s. And el a fi le d asch edul in g re po rt a ndon th e sa m e d ay fil eda m ot io n s eek in g th e rec us al of t he di st ric t ju dg e. Inhi s m ot io n fo r rec us al , And el a al le ge d t ha t the di st ric t ju dg e h ad“

jum pe d thr ou gh ho op s” to di sm is s the cas e wit ho utpre jud ic e an d d is reg ard edAnd el a’s m ot io ns forsan ct io ns . The m ot io n a ls o a ccu se d t he jud ge of o bs tru ct in g ju st ic e. A jud ge m

us t re cu se hi m se lf i n a ny pro ceed in g i n wh ic h h is im parti al ity m ig htreas on ab ly be que st io ne d. 2 8 U.S.C. § 45 5. Gen eral ly a j ud ge m ay on ly be di squa li fie d fo r bi as th atco m es fro m ex tra jud ic ia l s ou rces . In re Wal ker , 53 2 F .3d at13 10 . Som et im es th ou gh , a jud ge ’s bi as m ay be de m on strat edfro m

hi s ju di ci al act io ns if the y

de m on st rat e a p erv as iv e b ia s an d p reju di ce ag ai ns t a p arty . Id. at 13 11 . This is no t s uc h acas e. Fi rs t, d es pi te th e err on eo us Sep te m be r 29 th di sm is sa l fo r th e p art ie s’ pu rp orte d fa il ur e to fil e a s ch edul in g re po rt, the ord er d oe s n otde m on st rat e an y bi as ag ai ns t An de la . To be gi n wi th , th e o rd er d is mis se d the cas e wit ho utpre jud ic e 4an d s ai d tha t the cas e wou ldbe reo pe ne d o nc e a s ch edul in g re po rt wa s fi le d.

Mo re t o the po in t, the di st ric t co urt qui ck ly reop en edth e cas e o nc e itwas app ris ed of th e cas e’s pr em atur e d is m is sa l. And el a’s arg um en ts reg ard in g t he di st ric t co ur ’s tre atm en t o f hi s m ot io ns fo r sa nc ti on s as a ba si s fo r rec us al are al so unpe rs ua si ve . And el a fi le d h is fir st m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s af

te r th e cas e h adbe enerro ne ou sl y di sm is se d b utbe fo re the di st ric t co urt was ap pr is edof i ts erro r. Whi le th e d is tri ctco urt was un de r th is m is ap pr eh en si on , itdi sm is se d the m ot io n a s m oo t. Aft er the cas e was rei ns ta te d an d a fte r And el a fi le d h is m ot io n fo r recu sa l, the di stric t co urt d en ie d t ha t m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s. Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d An de la ’s m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s b ecau se it di d n otbe li ev e th e d efen da ntact edinba d fa ith. Des pi te And el a’s co nt en ti on ot he rwis e, th e d is tri ctco urt was un de r no ob li ga ti on to rul e o n h is m ot io n a t an y po in t ea rli er. And el a’s ot he r m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s, wh ic h was ba se d o n the pa rti es ’ fai lu re to fil e a “ joi nt ” sc he du li ng rep ort, was de ni edbe cau se th e d efen da nt s fi le d a sc he du li ng rep ort b efo re the de ad li ne aft er i t b ecame clearth atth ey co ul d n ot co m e to anag reem en t wi th And el a ab ou t wh atto in cl ud e in th e rep ort. Last , And el a arg ue s tha t the di stric t co urt’s o rd er re nd eri ng su m m ary jud gm en t an d d is m is si ng hi s cl ai m s i s ev id en ce o f th e d is tri ctjud ge ’s bi as . 5Altho ug h i t wo ul d h av e b eenim po ss ib le forAnd el a to adva nc e th atarg um en t at th e ti m e h e fi le d h is m ot io n t o re cu se , he c it es itas e vi de nc e o f bi as . W e rea d i t, ho wev er, o nl y

to be anadve rs e ru li ng . Adv ers e ru li ng s ar e g ro un ds forap pe al , bu t th ey are ra rel y

gro un ds forrecu sa l. In re Wal ker , 53 2 F .3dat 1 31 1. An d a ll And el a h as pre se nt edto th is co urt ar e th e d is tri ctjud ge ’s rul in gs ag ai ns t h im , no ne of whi chrai se an y

qu es ti on ab ou t h is im

pa rti al ity . Accor di ng ly, we co nc lu de th at th e d is tri ctjud ge di d n otab us e h is di sc ret io n b y no t re cu si ng . II. Dis m is sa l an d S umm ary Ju dg m en t A. And el a’s Tit le VII cl ai m s ag ai ns t M ia m i Afte r And el a was fir edfro m Mi am i, h e fi le d an a dm in is tra ti ve co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t M ia m i wi th th e Fl or id a Co m m is si onon Hum anRel at io ns (FCHR) an d the Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Comm is si on (EEOC). Thatco m pl ai ntin vo lv ed th e sa m e fac ts an d c au se of a ct io n t ha t An de laass ert s i n h is Tit le VII cl ai m s h ere. And el a’s co m

pl ai ntwas i nv es ti ga te d a ndanadm in is tra ti ve law ju dg e (ALJ) he lda he ari ng , wher e And el a an d o th ers tes ti fie d. Aft er the he ari ng , th e ALJ is su eda 65 -p ag e ru li ng , whi chAnd el a ap pe al edto th e FCHR . After t he FCHR affi rm edth e ALJ, An de laap pe al edon ce ag ai n t o t he Flo rid a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal s. Th e Fl or id a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal s af firm edth e FCHR ’s dec is io n. And el a th ende ci de d t o s ue Mi am i i n fe de ral co urt. 6Init s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t o n An de la ’s Titl e VII cl ai m s ag ai ns t M ia m i, the di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t An de la ’s cla im s wer e b arre d b y res jud ic at a an d c ol late ral est op pe l b ecau se he ha d app eal edth e FCHR ’s de te rm in at io n t o the Flo rid a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal s. We do no t re achth atis su e, ho wev er, b ecau se we are b arre d fr om co ns id eri ng th e g ro un ds on whi chAnd el a ch al le ng es th e p recl us iv e eff ectof t he st at e co urt ju dg m en t. And el a arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d n otha ve fou ndth atth e Fl or id a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal s’ jud gm en t b arre d h is Tit le VII cl ai m s b ecau se th e jud gm en t was pro cu redby fraud . The b as is forth is frau d s eem s t o b e And el a’s as se rti on th atth e ALJ an d the FCHR d eci de d m at te rs ou ts id e o f th ei r juri sd ic ti on in act in g o n h is co m

pl ai nt . Butde ci di ng cla im s o f em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n i s cl earl y a m at te r withi n the juri sd ic ti on of t he FCHR. Fl a. St . § 7 60 .06 ; id. § 76 0.1 0. An d the Flo rid a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal s al so cle arl y ha d juris di ct io n t o rev ie w th e FCHR ’s dec is io n. Id. § 7 60 .11 The rem ai nd er o f And el a’s arg um en ts ask s u s t o d o s om ethi ng th atwe m ay no t. An d tha t i s re vi ew an d re ject the st at e co urt ju dg m en t en te redag ai ns t h im . Fed eral di st ric t co urts an d c ou rts of app eal m ay no t re vi ew st at e co urt ju dg m en ts whe n the lo si ng pa rty in s ta te co urt b rin gs anact io n i n fe de ral co urt at ta ck in g the pr ev io us ly rend eredst at e co urt ju dg m en t. Exxo n Mo bi l Co rp . v. Sa udi Ba si c 7In du s. , 54 4 U.S. 2 80 , 28 4 (2 00 5) . Accor di ng ly, be cau se we m ay no t re vi ew th e va li di ty of th e st at e co urt ju dg m en t, we d is m is s tha t p orti on of An de la ’s app eal . B. And el a’s ot he r fed eral cla im s W e rev ie w an o rd er g ran ti ng a m ot io n t o d is mis s de no vo . Amnes tyInt ’l v . Bat tl e , 55 9 F .3d11 70 , 11 76 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Andwe acce ptas tru e al l o f th e pl ai nt iff s’ well -p le ad edall eg at io ns . Id. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s o rd er ren de rin g s umm ary jud gm en t de no vo . Th oma s v. C oo pe r Li gh ti ng , Inc . , 50 6 F .3d 13 61 , 13 63 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). A part y is en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t i f, aft er an ad equa te ti m e fo r di sc ov ery ha s p as se d, i t ca n d em on st rat e th atno ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts an d i t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m atte r of law. Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c)( 2) ; Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Catre tt , 47 7 U.S. 3 17 , 32 2 (1 98 6) . W e fi rs t n ot e th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly rend eredsu m m ary jud gm en t o n And el a’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t M ia m i an d UNC u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § § 1 98 3 a nd19 85 . As th e d is tri ctco urt n ot ed , Mia m i, wh ic h i s a p riv at e uni ve rs ity , is no t a s ta te act or an d n on e o f th e “ rare cir cu m st an ces ” al lo win g a§ 1 98 3 c la im ag ai ns t a p riv at e act orwere al le ge d. Ray bu rn v. Hog ue , 24 1 F .3d13 41 , 13 47 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e § 19 83 cla im ag ai ns t M ia m i was pro pe rly dis m is se d. Lik ewis e, th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t UNC were pro pe rly dis mis se d b ecau se UNC is a st at e ag en cy , andth us no t a p ro pe r de fen da ntun de r § 1 98 3 o r § 1 98 5. W il l v. 8Mic h. Dep ’t o f Sta te Pol ic e , 49 1 U.S 5 8, 6 6 (1 98 9) . W ith t he ex cep ti on of And el a’s Tit le VII cl ai m , UNC’ s s ov erei gn imm un ity als o p recl ud edAnd el a’s rem ai ni ng fed eral cla im s ag ai ns t i t. An d An de la ’s Titl e VII cl ai m was p ro pe rly di sm is se d b ecau se UNC was n othi s emplo y er an d h is co m pl ai ntdo es no t su ffi ci en tl y

all eg e h ow UNC i nt erfe redwith h is em pl oym en t atMi am i. Parda zi v. Cu llman Med. Ctr . , 83 8 F .2d11 55 , 11 56 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). And el a’s Sh erm anAct cl ai m s ag ai ns t M ia mi wer e al so pro pe rly dis m is se d. Inad di ti on to fai li ng to all eg e a h arm to co m pe ti ti on ge ne ral ly, And el a’s Sect io n 1 cl ai m fai ls to all eg e a co nt ract , com bi na ti on , or c on sp ira cy

inres tra in t o f tr ad e. In hi s Se ct io n 2 cla im , And el a fai le d t o a ll eg e th e rel ev an t m ark et , whi chis ne ces sa ry to st at e a Sec ti on 2 cl ai m . W alker Pro ces s Eq ui

p., In c. v. Foo d Ma ch . &Ch em. Co rp . , 38 2 U.S. 1 72 , 17 7 (1 96 5) . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly di sm is se d An de la ’s She rm anAct cl ai m s fo r fai lu re t o s tate cla im . Lik ewis e, th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly dis mis se d An de la ’s Lanh am Act cl ai m s, b ecau se th e Lan ham Act d oe s n otpro te ctag ai ns t p la gi ari sm . Cf . Das ta r Co rp . v. Twen ti eth Cen tu ryFox Fi lm Co rp . , 53 9 U.S. 2 3, 3 6 (2 00 3) . Lik ewis e, th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly dis mis se d An de la ’s RICO cl ai m . Evenif the Flo rid a jud gm en t h adbe enob ta in edth ro ug h fr au d i t was a si ng le ev en t, an d An de la ’s co m pl ai ntdo es no t d em on st rat e a p at te rnof r ack et erri ng act iv ity or h ow i t 9co ns ti tu te d aco nt in ui ng th reatof o ng oi ng cri m in al act iv ity . Se e H.J., Inc . v. Nw.

Bell Tel e. Co . , 49 2 U.S. 2 29 , 24 0 (1 98 9) . C. And el a’s st at e la w cla im s W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o e xe rci se supp le m en ta l juris di ct io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Parker v. Sc ra p Me ta l Pr oc es so rs , Inc . , 46 8 F .3d73 3, 7 38 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Becau se th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d An de la ’s fed eral cl ai m s, we fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n i ts de ci si on no t t o e xe rci se supp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er h is rem ai ni ng st at e la w cla im s. Lei b v . Hil ls bo ro ugh C nt y. Pub . Tr an sp . Comm’n , 55 8 F .3d13 01 , 13 05 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). III. An de la ’s Mo ti on forReco ns id erat io n Tenda y s af

te r th e d is tri ctco urt en te redit s s umm ary jud gm en t o rd er, An de la fil eda m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. An de laarg ue s tha t the m ot io n s ho ul d h av e be entre at edas o ne un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 6 0( b) . Becau se And el a’s m ot io n was fil edwithi n t he pe rio d a ll owe d u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 9( e) an d i t as ke d the di st ric t co urt t o s etasi de th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t of su m m ary jud ge m en t, i t was pro pe rly treat edas am ot io n u nd er Ru le 59 (e). Mays v. U.S. Pos ta l S

erv. , 12 2 F .3d43 , 46 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ); Fin ch v. Cit y o f Vern on , 84 5 F .2d25 6, 2 58 –5 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 8) . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Arthu r 10v. Ki ng , 50 0 F .3d13 35 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). In t hi s ci rcu it , a Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n

m ay on ly be g ran te d wh ere t he m ov an t p res en ts ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce o r itis ne ces sa ry to co rrec t m an ife sterro rs of l aw orfact . Id . The m ot io n c an no t b e u se d to rel it ig at e o ldm at te rs or r ai se arg um en ts or p res en t ev id en ce tha t co ul d h av e be enrai se d o r pr es en te d b efo re the en try of jud gm en t. Id. Bec au se th e “ ne wly di sc ov ered ” ev id en ce i n An de la ’s Rul e 5 9( e) m ot io n was no t u na va il ab le be fo re th e en try of jud gm en t an d h is leg al arg um en ts were re cap itul at io ns of t ho se fro m hi s ea rli er fi li ng s, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly den ie d h is Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n. AFFIRMED in pa rt, DIS MIS SED i n pa rt.

11