Court Opinion

ID: 9893539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 17:00:52.239258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:27.403453
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10807   Document: 19-1    Date Filed: 10/27/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-10807
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       FURQUAN R. STAFFORD,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       KEDRION S.P.A.,
       KEDRION BIOPHARMA, INC.,
       GRIFOLS INTERNATIONAL S.A.,
       GRIFOLS SHARED SERVICES NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
       CSL PLASMA, INC., et al.,

                                               Defendants-Appellees,

       OCTAPHARMA AG, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-10807     Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 10/27/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-10807

                                                               Defendants.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00573-VMC
                           ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Furquan Stafford appeals pro se the dismissal of his amended
       complaint against Kedrion S.p.A.; Kedrion Biopharma, Inc.; Grifols
       International, S.A.; Grifols Shared Services North America, Inc.;
       CSL Plasma, Inc.; CSL Behring; and CSL Limited. Stafford, an Af-
       rican-American entrepreneur in blood plasma collection, com-
       plained that, since at least 1998, the defendant plasma distributors
       had refused to contract with him because of his race. 42 U.S.C.
       § 1981. The district court dismissed with prejudice Stafford’s com-
       plaint against three domestic distributors—Kedrion Biopharma,
       Inc., Grifols Shared Services North America, Inc., and CSL Plasma,
       Inc.—as barred by res judicata. It dismissed without prejudice the
       complaint against the remaining distributors, many of which were
       international corporations, for lack of personal jurisdiction. We af-
       firm.
USCA11 Case: 23-10807       Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 10/27/2023      Page: 3 of 4

       23-10807                Opinion of the Court                           3

              We review a dismissal on res judicata grounds de novo.
       Kizzire v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., 441 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.
       2006). Although we ordinarily review the denial of a motion for
       leave to amend for abuse of discretion, “where the lower court de-
       nies leave to amend based on futility of the proposed amendment,
       we review de novo because it is a conclusion that as a matter of law
       an amended complaint would necessarily fail.” SE Prop. Holdings,
       LLC v. Gaddy, 977 F.3d 1051, 1056 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks
       omitted, alteration adopted).
              The district court did not err by dismissing Stafford’s com-
       plaint against the domestic distributors. Res judicata bars a com-
       plaint when a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final
       judgment on the merits on another complaint that involves the
       same parties or those in privity with them and that involves the
       same cause of action. Shurick v. Boeing Co., 623 F.3d 1114, 1116–17
       (11th Cir. 2010). Stafford has filed several lawsuits alleging that the
       same domestic plasma distributors illegally refused to do business
       with him because of his race under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15
       U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. His most recent lawsuit, filed in 2020, was dismissed
       with prejudice for failing to state a claim and resulted in a final judg-
       ment on the merits against the same parties—Kedrion Biopharam,
       Inc.; Grifols Shared Services North America, Inc.; and CSL Plasma,
       Inc. See Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 704 F.3d 882, 892–93 (11th Cir.
       2013). Although that prior suit did not invoke section 1981, Stafford
       does not dispute the ruling that his complaint arose from the same
       nucleus of operative fact. See Manning v. City of Auburn, 953 F.2d
       1355, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 1992).
USCA11 Case: 23-10807      Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 10/27/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10807

               Instead, Stafford’s only argument about the res judicata rul-
       ing is that a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction does not con-
       stitute a decision on the merits. But the district court did not rely
       on a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction in determining that
       the instant lawsuit against the domestic distributors was barred by
       res judicata. And Stafford does not argue that the district court
       could exercise personal jurisdiction over the international plasma
       distributors. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678,
       681 (11th Cir. 2014). The district court correctly ruled that res judi-
       cata barred his complaint against the three domestic plasma distrib-
       utors.
              The district court did not err by denying Stafford leave to
       amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The district court ruled that of the
       three corporations that he sought to add with his second amended
       complaint, one of them, CSL Limited, already was a named party
       over which the district court ruled it lacked personal jurisdiction.
       As for the other two corporations—Grifols S.A. and Biomat USA,
       Inc.—the district court ruled, and Stafford does not dispute, that
       these corporations are in privity with domestic distributor Grifols
       Shared Services North America, Inc. See id. Because res judicata
       would bar the second amended complaint, and because this was
       Stafford’s fifth unsuccessful lawsuit based on the same allegations,
       further amendment would have been futile and caused undue de-
       lay. See Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007).
              We AFFIRM the dismissal of Stafford’s amended complaint.