Court Opinion

ID: 9364841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 15:00:39.775002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.716141
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-10570    Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 01/20/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-10570
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       ENRIQUE J. DIAZ,
       MARIA DIAZ,
                                                   Plaintiffs-Appellants,
       versus
       NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
       d.b.a. Mr. Cooper,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 21-10570     Document: 52-1         Date Filed: 01/20/2023   Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  21-10570

                      D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-22148-MGC
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Enrique and Maria Diaz (collectively, the Diazes,), proceed-
       ing pro se, filed a second amended complaint against Nationstar
       Mortgage, LLC, d/b/a Mr. Cooper (Nationstar) alleging breach of
       contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair deal-
       ing, and fraud. The district court dismissed the complaint with
       prejudice. The Diazes filed a timely notice of appeal.
               On appeal, the Diazes argue that the district court improp-
       erly ignored the factual allegations supporting their breach of con-
       tract claim when it dismissed for failure to state a claim. Conse-
       quently, they argue, reversal of this error should also revive their
       claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Fi-
       nally, they perfunctorily argue that their complaint stated a claim
       for fraud. After careful review of the briefs and the record we
       AFFIRM.
                                            I.
              We review a district court’s ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
       de novo, “accept[ing] the allegations in the complaint as true and
       constru[ing] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Hen-
       ley v. Payne, 945 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2019). We may affirm
       a district court’s judgment “on any ground supported by the
USCA11 Case: 21-10570      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       21-10570                Opinion of the Court                         3

       record, regardless of whether that ground was relied upon or even
       considered by the district court.” Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley,
       694 F.3d 1294, 1309 (11th Cir. 2012).
               We hold “the allegations of a pro se complaint to less strin-
       gent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Camp-
       bell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). That
       said, “this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto
       counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in
       order to sustain an action.” Id. at 1168–69 (quotation marks omit-
       ted).
              “[I]ssues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are
       deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th
       Cir. 2008). We will not address arguments advanced for the first
       time in an appellant’s reply brief. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins.
       Co., 739 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2014).
              Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
       “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short
       and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is enti-
       tled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[T]his means that a com-
       plaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
       state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Est. of Bass v.
       Regions Bank, Inc., 947 F.3d 1352, 1358 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation
       marks omitted). “A claim is facially plausible when the court can
       draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
       misconduct alleged from the pled facts.” Resnick v. AvMed, Inc.,
       693 F.3d 1317, 1326 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted).
USCA11 Case: 21-10570      Document: 52-1       Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  21-10570

       Although we accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true,
       we are “not bound to extend the same assumption of truth to plain-
       tiffs’ conclusions of law.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements
       of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
       not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A com-
       plaint must identify with specificity which factual paragraphs are
       relevant to each individual claim. See Est. of Bass, 947 F.3d at 1356
       n.5.
              “For a breach of contract claim, Florida law requires the
       plaintiff to plead and establish: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) a
       material breach of that contract; and (3) damages resulting from
       the breach.” Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1272 (11th
       Cir. 2009). “In Florida, a breach of contract claim requires a party
       to show that damages resulted from the breach.” Resnick, 693 F.3d
       at 1325. (emphasis in original). We have held that, under Florida
       law, a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
       cannot be maintained absent an allegation that an express term of
       the contract has been breached. Centurion Air Cargo v. UPS Co.,
       420 F.3d 1146, 1152 (11th Cir.2005).
              Here, the Diazes have failed to demonstrate that the district
       court erred in dismissing the breach of contract claim for failure to
       state a claim. Claim I in the second amended complaint plainly
       reads: “Plaintiffs submit that the defendants actions constitute
       Breach of Contract under Florida Law and pursuant to Centurion
       Air Cargo, Inc. v. U.P.S. Co., 420 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 2005).” This
       statement consists entirely of a conclusion of law that Nationstar
USCA11 Case: 21-10570      Document: 52-1         Date Filed: 01/20/2023   Page: 5 of 6

       21-10570               Opinion of the Court                           5

       breached the contract without any factual support, and therefore
       fails to satisfy Rule 8’s requirement of a “short and plain” statement
       describing the claim’s factual support. To determine which facts
       support the Diazes’ claim would require the type of review from
       this court that we have previously deemed unacceptable. See Est.
       of Bass, 947 F.3d at 1358.
              Even when reaching beyond the complaint to what the Di-
       azes argue in their brief, the Diazes failed to demonstrate that Na-
       tionstar breached the mortgage contract. The Diazes argue that
       Nationstar’s tardiness in handling the repair process breached the
       contract. However, paragraph 5 of the Mortgage contract makes
       clear that the promptness requirement only relates to Nationstar’s
       undertaking of the final inspection rather than imposing a prompt-
       ness requirement on the repair process as a whole. The lack of
       promptness alone, therefore, does not constitute a breach of con-
       tract.
              Because the Diazes’s breach of contract claim was properly
       dismissed, their claim for breach of the implied covenant of good
       faith and fair dealing was also properly dismissed.
                                            II.
               Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a
       party alleging fraud to “state with particularity the circumstances
       constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). In order to
       survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead “(1) the pre-
       cise statements, documents, or misrepresentations made; (2) the
USCA11 Case: 21-10570     Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 21-10570

       time, place, and person responsible for the statement; (3) the con-
       tent and manner in which these statements misled the Plaintiff[ ];
       and (4) what the defendants gained by the alleged fraud.” Cisne-
       ros v. Petland, Inc., 972 F.3d 1204, 1216 (11th Cir. 2020) (quota-
       tion marks omitted, alteration in original).
               Here, the Diazes have forfeited review of this issue by only
       perfunctorily raising it in their initial brief. Their general asser-
       tion that their amended complaint sufficiently pled the circum-
       stances constituting fraud without any supporting argument is in-
       sufficient to warrant review. Nor can they revive the claim by ex-
       panding on it for the first time in their reply brief. See Sapuppo,
       739 F.3d at 683.
             AFFIRMED.