Case Name: Gerhard Emil MAALE, III, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. CAICOS BEACH CLUB CHARTER, LTD., a foreign company, et al., Defendants, Kim Francis Kirchgessner, Rahl & Rahl, PA, a Florida professional Association, Patricia Rahl, Brian Rahl, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-30
Citations: 420 F. App'x 895
Docket Number: No. 10-13798
Parties: Gerhard Emil MAALE, III, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. CAICOS BEACH CLUB CHARTER, LTD., a foreign company, et al., Defendants, Kim Francis Kirchgessner, Rahl & Rahl, PA, a Florida professional Association, Patricia Rahl, Brian Rahl, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKETT, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 895–895

Head Matter:
Gerhard Emil MAALE, III, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. CAICOS BEACH CLUB CHARTER, LTD., a foreign company, et al., Defendants, Kim Francis Kirchgessner, Rahl & Rahl, PA, a Florida professional Association, Patricia Rahl, Brian Rahl, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.
No. 10-13798.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 30, 2011.
Matthew J. Conigliaro, Carlton Fields, PA, St. Petersburg, FL, Ryon M. McCabe, Mark David Nichols, McCabe Rabin, P.A, Adam Rabin, Dimond Kaplan Rothstein, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant.
Stephanie Deutsch, Harriet R. Lewis, Gary Keith Oldehoff, Lewis Stroud & Deutsch PL, Boca Raton, FL, Bruce S. Rogow, Bruce S. Rogow PA, Fort Lauder-dale, FL, for Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.
Scott D. Alexander, E. Bruce Johnson, Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & McDuff, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants.
Before BARKETT, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gerhard Emil Maale, III, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendants Kim Kirchgessner, Brian Rahl, Patricia Rahl, and Rahl & Rahl, PA, on Maale's civil R.I.C.O. claims. He argues that the court erred in concluding that his claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations for civil R.I.C.O. claims. We have considered the briefs and oral argument of the parties and, on this record, find no reversible error in the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendants.
AFFIRMED.