Opinion ID: 4571107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Mandala filed a pro se action against Tire Stickers, LLC (“Tire Stickers”), and Keith Ferry (“Ferry”), an employee of Tire Stickers, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512; tortious interference and abuse of process; the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1120; and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.201. The district court sua sponte dismissed Mandala’s complaint without prejudice because it was an impermissible shotgun pleading. The court instructed Mandala that he could refile an amended complaint to cure this deficiency. Thereafter, Mandala filed his first amended complaint, which Tire Stickers moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction. Subsequently, Mandala filed a motion seeking leave to amend his complaint again, asking to supplement facts, add new facts, and add new defendants. The district 2 Case: 19-14416 Date Filed: 09/30/2020 Page: 3 of 13 court granted Mandala’s motion for leave to amend and denied Tire Stickers’s motion to dismiss as moot. Mandala filed his second amended complaint (the “operative complaint”) which added Jason Busch (“Busch”), Toyo Tire Corporation and Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp. (collectively “Toyo Tire”), Bluehost Inc. (“Bluehost”), and DuPont Publishing, Inc. (“Dupont”) as defendants. The first four counts of the operative complaint were alleged violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) (Count One), 1962(a) (Count Two), 1962(b) (Count Three), and 1962(d) (Count Four). The remaining counts alleged: violations of the DMCA (Count Five), tortious interference and abuse of process (Count Six), violations of the Lanham Act (Count Seven), a request for declaratory judgment under the Lanham Act (Count Eight), and violations of the FDUTPA (Count Nine). The complaint contained the following allegations. Mandala, a resident of Orlando, Florida, is a small business owner who sells tire decor through online websites. Mandala began the business under the company name “TIREGRAFICX,” and, with “Ferry’s verbal permission,” began to resell Tire Stickers’ products using his own logo. In May 2018, Tire Stickers officially severed distribution ties with Mandala via a “Termination of Distributor Agreement” letter, leading Mandala to take down all references to Tire Stickers and its products on his website. Mandala continued to sell items similar to those 3 Case: 19-14416 Date Filed: 09/30/2020 Page: 4 of 13 sold previously that he alleged were his own, distinct products. In June 2018, Tire Stickers filed a suit in federal court in California for trademark infringement and breach of contract and received a default judgment which included a permanent injunction against Mandala. In the underlying complaint, Mandala generally alleged that the defendants obtained the judgment and injunction fraudulently and that all the defendants “conspired together” to engage in a pattern of fraudulent and racketeering activity. Specifically, he alleged that Tire Stickers, Toyo Tire, and Ferry used Bluehost’s internet services to file false notices of trademark infringement against Mandala with various online business platforms in a concerted effort to drive Mandala out of business. Further, Mandala alleged that this fraudulent scheme caused Dupont to cease advertising services for him. Mandala further alleged that he received ten trademark infringement complaints through his eBay store that were signed and verified by Ferry, with each complaint causing lost sales and temporarily shutting down Mandala’s business. Additionally, in November 2018, a trademark infringement complaint was filed against Mandala’s Instagram account and Amazon Seller’s Account, leading to a revocation of these accounts and financial loss. At the same time, similar complaints were filed with Mandala’s other web store providers, leading to takedowns of these sites as well. For each of the preceding allegations, Mandala generally alleged that the defendants used “the same fraudulent schemes and 4 Case: 19-14416 Date Filed: 09/30/2020 Page: 5 of 13 racketeering activities, including but not limited to: wire fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.” And he generally asserted that these fraudulently filed trademark infringement complaints demonstrated a “pattern of racketeering.” Mandala also alleged that “Defendants” filed “fraudulent” notice of copyright infringement reports claiming to own the rights of “Toyo Tire & Rubber Co.” One of these fraudulent reports “materially and tortuously [sic]” misrepresented the nature of the injunction against Mandala. In response, Tire Stickers, Ferry, and Busch filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction over Ferry and Busch. Toyo Tire and Bluehost also each filed separate motions to dismiss the operative complaint for failure to state a claim. Mandala filed response briefs that opposed the motions to dismiss and asserted that the operative complaint “should be upheld in its entirety, or with leave to amend,” but he did not attach or discuss the substance of a proposed third amended complaint. Similarly, he did not file any motion seeking leave to amend the complaint for a third time. The district court issued an order that granted the motions to dismiss the operative complaint with prejudice and closed the case. Specifically, the district court dismissed all claims against Ferry and Busch for failure to establish personal jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statue. The district court dismissed the RICO 5 Case: 19-14416 Date Filed: 09/30/2020 Page: 6 of 13 counts against the remaining defendants for failure to allege essential elements. 1 The district court dismissed Count Five because the DMCA applies only to copyright violations, not trademark violations like those alleged in the complaint. Count Six was dismissed because it impermissibly contained two claims for relief—tortious interference and abuse of process. Counts Seven and Eight were dismissed because the operative complaint failed to allege fraudulent conduct or representations made to secure a trademark registration and failed to plead that damages were proximately caused by the alleged false registration. Finally, Count Nine was dismissed because Mandala’s claims under the FDUTPA relied on the preceding RICO, DMCA, and Lanham Act claims, which all failed to state a claim. Additionally, the district court denied Mandala leave to amend, noting that Mandala was given three prior opportunities to plead his claims properly and yet he continued to make vague and conclusory allegations. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. This appeal followed. 1 Specifically, Count One failed to establish that an enterprise existed for purposes of RICO, alleged only parallel conduct between the defendants, and lacked any allegations of knowledge and intent to defraud. Count Two failed to allege that Mandala suffered injury from the use or reinvestment of the income from the alleged racketeering. Count Three failed to allege how or when the defendants took ownership or control of Mandala’s business and only alleged damage from the predicate acts, not from the takeover. Count Four, conspiracy to violate RICO, failed because he failed to allege a claim in Counts One, Two, and Three. 6 Case: 19-14416 Date Filed: 09/30/2020 Page: 7 of 13