Court Opinion

ID: 9930833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 20:01:19.09179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:29.006446
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10460   Document: 31-1    Date Filed: 02/07/2024   Page: 1 of 15

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-10460
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

        WAYNE JOHNSON FOR CONGRESS, INC.,
        WAYNE JOHNSON,
                                                  Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
        versus
        JEREMY C. HUNT,
        d.b.a. Jeremy for Georgia,
        FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC,
        BRIAN M. KILMEADE,

                                                Defendants-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10460      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 2 of 15

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10460

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Georgia
                      D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cv-00118-CDL
                            ____________________

        Before WILSON, BRANCH, AND LUCK, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Wayne Johnson and Jeremy C. Hunt ran in the Republican
        primary during the 2022 election cycle for the opportunity to
        challenge Representative Sanford Bishop for his seat representing
        Georgia’s Second Congressional District. Neither won: Johnson
        lost in the ﬁrst round of the Republican primary, and Hunt lost in
        a run-oﬀ. But this case is not about election day. Rather, it is about
        an alleged racketeering scheme to promote Hunt’s campaign at the
        expense of Johnson and his other opponents.
               Johnson and “Wayne Johnson for Congress, Inc.”
        (collectively “Johnson”) allege that Hunt, his campaign “Jeremy for
        Georgia,” Fox News Network, LLC (“Fox”), and on-air talent Brian
        M. Kilmeade (hereinafter “Fox and Hunt”) engaged in a mail and
        wire fraud racketeering scheme in which they conspired to ﬂip a
        Democratic seat in the U.S. House of Representatives by
        promoting Hunt on Fox during Georgia’s 2022 primary election.
        After Johnson sued, Fox and Hunt removed the case to federal
        court and then moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
        Johnson moved to amend the complaint. The district court
        granted the motion to dismiss and denied the motion to amend,
USCA11 Case: 23-10460      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 3 of 15

        23-10460               Opinion of the Court                        3

        ﬁnding that Johnson did not plausibly allege that Fox and Hunt
        engaged in a wire and mail fraud racketeering scheme that resulted
        in compensable damages to Johnson.
               We conclude that neither the original complaint nor the
        proposed amended complaint alleges a fraudulent racketeering
        scheme against Johnson. After review, we aﬃrm the district court’s
        decision.
                                  I.    Background
               Wayne Johnson and Jeremy Hunt were two (of many)
        candidates in the 2022 Republican primary election for Georgia’s
        Second Congressional District. After Johnson lost in the ﬁrst round
        of the primary election, he sued Fox and Hunt in the Superior
        Court of Muscogee County, Georgia, claiming violations of the
        federal and Georgia Racketeer Inﬂuenced and Corrupt
        Organizations statutes (“RICO”). 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); O.C.G.A.
        § 16-14-1 et seq. Speciﬁcally, Johnson alleges that Hunt was selected
        by Senator Tom Cotton to participate in a national “Veterans to
        Victory” program “to elect Republican military veterans to
        Congress.” The program, in part, connects its “chosen candidates”
        with Fox “for media appearances.” As relevant here, Fox hosted
        Hunt at least twelve times, sometimes as a guest of Kilmeade, over
        a span of ﬁve months.
              In an initial segment, Hunt “announced his
        candidacy . . . with signiﬁcant fanfare.” In later appearances,
        emphasizing his status as a West Point graduate and his experience
        serving as an Army Captain, Hunt commented on politics, national
USCA11 Case: 23-10460     Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 02/07/2024    Page: 4 of 15

        4                     Opinion of the Court                23-10460

        security, and foreign aﬀairs. He often segued into discussions about
        his campaign and provided his website to solicit donations from
        viewers.
               Hunt’s airtime on Fox provided him with the opportunity to
        “raise[] substantial sums of money from a broad-based national
        audience[.]” According to Johnson, Fox did not oﬀer similar
        opportunities to the other candidates running in the Republican
        primary. For example, Johnson appeared on Fox one time, and
        neither he nor the on-air personality accompanying him
        encouraged viewers to contribute to Johnson’s campaign.
               Only once during Hunt’s appearances on Fox did he and the
        Fox on-air talent acknowledge the other candidates running in the
        primary election. In that acknowledgment, Hunt discussed the
        runoﬀ with Chris West and “the endorsements he had collected
        over []West and Representative Sanford Bishop,” who the winner
        of the runoﬀ would face in the election for the House seat.
               Johnson maintained that throughout Hunt’s campaign, Fox
        “routinely promoted” Hunt “as being a native of Columbus,
        Georgia, and thereby Georgia’s Second Congressional District,”
        even though Hunt grew up in the metro-Atlanta area. Hunt’s
        closest connection to Columbus prior to his campaign was a three-
        week “temporary duty assignment to Fort Benning [near
        Columbus] for Airborne Jump School[.]” More recently, Hunt
        leased an apartment in Columbus.
              In sum, Johnson argued that Fox and Hunt engaged in a mail
        and wire fraud racketeering scheme in which they “hoodwink[ed]”
USCA11 Case: 23-10460      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 5 of 15

        23-10460               Opinion of the Court                        5

        voters with “misrepresentations, omissions, and deceptions,”
        ultimately neglecting alternative Republican primary candidates
        like Johnson. Under this scheme, Hunt purportedly proposed
        reasons to appear on Fox News, conferred with Kilmeade and other
        Fox employees, and then “appear[ed] under such false pretenses of
        a discussion about a news event, only to quickly and easily navigate,
        with complicity of the hosting talent, conversations to a discussion
        of [his] Congressional campaign, directing viewers from all across
        America to his website where they [could] contribute to his
        campaign.” According to Johnson, this scheme “deprived Georgia
        voters of meaningful participation in their . . . Congressional
        Republican election[.]” Johnson also alleges that he was “harmed
        by the deprivation of equal access to . . . Fox News.” As for
        damages, Johnson requested “an award equaling the fair market
        value” of Hunt’s airtime on Fox and “an award equaling the
        contributions made to [Hunt] that can be directly tied to donations
        made as a result of ” the alleged racketeering scheme.
               Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a), and 1446, Fox and
        Hunt timely removed the action to federal court based on federal
        question jurisdiction. Fox and Kilmeade then moved to dismiss for
        failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
        12(b)(6), joined fully by Hunt, arguing that Johnson failed to plead
        any racketeering activity under federal or Georgia RICO statutes
        and failed to plead damages.
             Johnson later moved to amend the complaint. The proposed
        amended complaint added slightly more detail regarding: Hunt’s
USCA11 Case: 23-10460        Document: 31-1        Date Filed: 02/07/2024       Page: 6 of 15

        6                        Opinion of the Court                     23-10460

        campaign, Fox and Hunt’s decision not to reference Hunt’s
        opponents, Fox’s alleged violations of the Equal Time Rule, and
        Fox’s support of Republican candidates in other primaries in 2022.
        It also included two new predicate acts under Georgia’s RICO
        statute: perjury and false swearing.
               The district court granted Fox and Hunt’s motion to dismiss
        and denied Johnson’s motion for leave to amend. 1 First, in granting
        the motion to dismiss, the court determined that “the [alleged]
        exaggeration of Hunt’s national security credentials, the
        misleading characterization of his connection to the district, and
        the concealment of the contested nature of the Republican
        primary” did not “plausibly allege the two predicate acts of wire
        and mail fraud” and “there [was] no resulting injury to [Johnson].”
        The court added that the alleged misrepresentations—which were
        directed at the voters, not at Johnson—did not support an
        actionable case of fraud based on “misrepresentations to a third
        party” under Supreme Court precedent.
                Second, turning to the motion for leave to amend, the
        district court concluded that “the[] deﬁciencies in [the] complaint
        [were] not ﬁxable.” Because “allowing [Johnson] to amend the[]

        1 Following removal, Johnson moved to remand the action, arguing that in his

        proposed amended complaint, “the Georgia RICO claims . . . clearly and
        substantially predominate over the Federal RICO claims.” While the district
        court did not explicitly address Johnson’s motion to remand, the court stated
        it “ha[d] jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction.”
USCA11 Case: 23-10460      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 7 of 15

        23-10460               Opinion of the Court                         7

        complaint would be futile,” the court denied the motion for leave
        to amend.
               Johnson timely appealed the dismissal of his claims and the
        denial of his motion for leave to amend.
                                   II.     Discussion
                Johnson argues on appeal that the district court erred when
        it (1) concluded that his complaint failed to properly allege mail and
        wire fraud under federal and Georgia RICO statutes and (2) denied
        his motion for leave to amend. After review, we conclude that the
        district court properly dismissed Johnson’s complaint for failure to
        state a claim and properly denied his motion for leave to amend.
        We therefore aﬃrm the district court’s decision.
                   A. Standard of Review
               “We review de novo the dismissal of a civil RICO complaint
        pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Simpson v.
        Sanderson Farms, Inc., 744 F.3d 702, 705 (11th Cir. 2014). To survive
        a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a
        claim, “a complaint must contain suﬃcient factual matter, accepted
        as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
        Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted); Fed.
        R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We “accept[] the allegations in the complaint as
        true and constru[e] them in the light most favorable to the
        plaintiﬀ.” Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th
        Cir. 2010). Yet labels, conclusions, and formulaic recitations of the
        elements “will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
        (2007).
USCA11 Case: 23-10460         Document: 31-1          Date Filed: 02/07/2024         Page: 8 of 15

        8                          Opinion of the Court                        23-10460

              “We review a district court’s denial of leave to amend a
        complaint for an abuse of discretion.” Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. Sch. Bd.
        of Miami-Dade Cnty., 48 F.4th 1222, 1229 (11th Cir. 2022).
               We first address whether Johnson has plausibly alleged civil
        violations of federal and Georgia RICO statutes. We then turn to
        whether the district court properly denied Johnson’s motion for
        leave to amend the complaint.
                    B. Whether Johnson plausibly alleged violations of
                       federal and Georgia RICO statutes.
               We must ﬁrst address whether Johnson’s factual allegations,
        when taken as true as required at the pleadings stage, suﬃciently
        allege mail and wire fraud under federal and Georgia RICO
        statutes. The district court concluded that they did not. 2 We

        2 The parties debate whether the district court applied the correct standard

        when dismissing Johnson’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Johnson
        argues that “[t]he district court erred by not construing the facts set forth in
        the Complaint as true and in [Johnson’s] favor” because, if the district court
        had done so, “it should have found that the Complaint set forth the necessary
        factual allegations” to establish his case. Fox and Hunt argue that the district
        court “undeniably applied the correct formulation” of the law.
        We agree with Fox and Hunt that the district court applied the correct legal
        standard. In its analysis, the court appropriately focused on whether the
        complaint satisﬁed the facial “plausibility standard” under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
        U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)—
        the two cases that formed the pleading standard. Therefore, concluding that
        the district court applied the correct standard, we focus our analysis on
        whether the complaint plausibly alleged civil violations of federal and Georgia
        RICO statutes.
USCA11 Case: 23-10460         Document: 31-1         Date Filed: 02/07/2024         Page: 9 of 15

        23-10460                  Opinion of the Court                                9

        agree. 3
              We start, as we must, with the statutes. “The federal and
        Georgia racketeering acts are essentially identical[.]” Feldman v.
        Am. Dawn, Inc., 849 F.3d 1333, 1342 (11th Cir. 2017) (quotations
        omitted)). Under the federal 4 and Georgia5 statutes, a plaintiﬀ

        3 The district court also criticized Johnson’s decision to allege that the fraud

        was directed at voters rather than him. While the court acknowledged that,
        under Supreme Court precedent, there are “some circumstances [where]
        misrepresentations to a third party could be actionable,” it concluded that
        those “circumstances [were] not present here.” See Bridge v. Phoenix Bond &
        Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639, 658 (2008). Because we conclude that the district
        court properly determined that Johnson’s allegations of mail and wire fraud
        do not meet the pleading requirements regardless of who the alleged fraud
        was directed at, we need not evaluate Johnson’s third-party reliance theory.
        4 Under the federal RICO statute, it is “unlawful for any person employed by

        or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect,
        interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or
        indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of
        racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
        5 Georgia’s RICO law provides:

               (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, through a pattern of
               racketeering activity or proceeds derived therefrom, to acquire
               or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of
               any enterprise, real property, or personal property of any
               nature, including money.
               (b) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or
               associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate in,
               directly or indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of
               racketeering activity.
               ....
USCA11 Case: 23-10460         Document: 31-1        Date Filed: 02/07/2024        Page: 10 of 15

        10                        Opinion of the Court                       23-10460

        must prove that a defendant participated in an unlawful enterprise
        “through a pattern of racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c);
        O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(b). Racketeering activity may include the
        predicate acts of mail and wire fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1); O.C.G.A.
        § 16-14-3. 6
               We have said that the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud
        “occur[] when a person (1) intentionally participates in a scheme to
        defraud another of money or property and (2) uses the mails or
        wires in furtherance of that scheme.” Am. Dental Ass’n, 605 F.3d at
        1290. “Under the mail and wire fraud statutes, a plaintiff only can
        show a scheme to defraud if he proves that some type of deceptive
        conduct occurred.” Ayres v. Gen. Motors Corp., 234 F.3d 514, 521
        (11th Cir. 2000) (quotations omitted). Such deceptive conduct
        includes “knowingly making false representations,” “concealing
        material facts,” and making statements “with reckless indiﬀerence
        to their truth or falsity.” United States v. Sawyer, 799 F.2d 1494, 1502
        (11th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).
              When a complaint “is based on an alleged pattern of
        racketeering consisting entirely of the predicate acts of mail and
        wire fraud, the[] substantive RICO allegations must
        comply . . . with [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 9(b)’s
        heightened pleading standard.” Am. Dental Ass’n, 605 F.3d at 1291.

        O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4.
        6 O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(C) says that “‘[r]acketeering activity’ shall . . . mean

        any conduct defined as ‘racketeering activity’ under 18 U.S.C. Section 1961
        (1)[.]”
USCA11 Case: 23-10460        Document: 31-1        Date Filed: 02/07/2024        Page: 11 of 15

        23-10460                  Opinion of the Court                              11

        Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard requires that “a party
        must state with particularity the circumstances constituting
        fraud[.]” Id. (quotations omitted). To satisfy Rule 9(b) in the RICO
        context, “a plaintiﬀ must allege: (1) the precise statements,
        documents, or misrepresentations made; (2) the time, place, and
        person responsible for the statement; (3) the content and manner
        in which these statements misled the Plaintiﬀs; and (4) what the
        defendants gained by the alleged fraud.” Id. (quotation omitted).
        Our analysis starts and ends at the ﬁrst step.
               Johnson purports to be proceeding under both mail and wire
        fraud. Although Johnson lists each of Hunt’s appearances on Fox
        during his campaign, Johnson only broadly alleges that Fox and
        Hunt defrauded him through “misrepresentations, omissions, and
        deceptions[.]” He does not show any actual fraud committed by
        Fox and Hunt. See Am. Dental Ass’n, 605 F.3d at 1291–93 (stating
        that although “Plaintiﬀs’ complaint provides a list of mailings and
        wires,” it never “identif[ies] any actual fraud” and therefore the
        complaint “does not plausibly . . . allege a pattern of racketeering
        activity predicated on a scheme to commit acts of mail and wire
        fraud”).
              As best we can tell, Johnson appears to argue that Fox and
        Hunt committed mail and wire fraud in two ways. 7 First, Johnson

        7 Johnson also complains that Fox did not offer similar opportunities to the

        other candidates running in the Republican primary. But he concedes that
        violations of the Equal Time Act—which says all “legally qualified candidate[s]
        for any public office” should be given “equal opportunities” to use
        broadcasting stations—do not constitute predicate acts for the RICO claims.
USCA11 Case: 23-10460        Document: 31-1         Date Filed: 02/07/2024         Page: 12 of 15

        12                         Opinion of the Court                       23-10460

        seems to be alleging that Fox committed fraud by not suﬃciently
        acknowledging the other candidates running in the primary
        election. But Fox has no aﬃrmative obligation to name other
        candidates and Johnson cites no law suggesting otherwise. Second,
        Johnson implies that Fox and Hunt misrepresented Hunt’s ties to
        the district because they promoted Hunt as “a native of Columbus,
        Georgia,” even though Hunt grew up in the metro-Atlanta area.
        But Johnson does not show how incorrectly stating that Hunt is
        from Columbus—while admitting that he had been stationed at
        Fort Benning near Columbus and more recently signed an
        apartment lease in Columbus—amounts to the concealment of
        material facts. Sawyer, 799 F.2d at 1502. Nor has he shown that Fox
        and Hunt’s “false” statements were “knowingly” made or made
        “with reckless indiﬀerence to their truth or falsity.” Id. Thus,
        because         Johnson        cannot      point        to       any
        “precise . . . misrepresentations” that amount to fraudulent
        conduct committed by Fox and Hunt, see Am. Dental Ass’n, 605 F.3d
        at 1291, we conclude that Johnson failed to allege the predicate acts
        of mail and wire fraud with the heightened speciﬁcity required by
        Rule 9(b). 8

        See 47 U.S.C. § 315(a). And there is no private cause of action for violations of
        the Equal Time Act. Belluso v. Turner Commc’ns Corp., 633 F.2d 393, 397 (5th
        Cir. 1980); Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en
        banc) (holding that all decisions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued
        before September 30, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit).
        8 Furthermore, to the extent that Johnson is asserting claims on behalf    of
        voters, he lacks standing to do so. “[W]e must consider [standing issues] as a
USCA11 Case: 23-10460         Document: 31-1         Date Filed: 02/07/2024          Page: 13 of 15

        23-10460                   Opinion of the Court                                 13

                    C. Whether the district court erred in denying Johnson’s
                       motion for leave to amend.
              We next turn to whether the district court erred in denying
        Johnson’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. Johnson
        argues that allowing the proposed amendment would not be futile
        because the amended pleading (1) adds factual allegations that
        further prove the elements of federal and Georgia RICO claims and
        (2) adds perjury and false swearing as predicate acts under
        Georgia’s RICO statute. The district court said that “the[]
        deﬁciencies in [the] complaint [were] not ﬁxable,” and thus
        “allowing [Johnson] to amend [his] complaint would be futile.”
                We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
        discretion in denying Johnson’s motion for leave to amend the
        complaint. See Chabad Chayil, Inc., 48 F.4th at 1229. A motion for
        leave to amend may be denied “where amendment would be
        futile.” In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1109 (11th Cir. 2014).
        Amendment would be futile “when the complaint as amended is

        threshold matter, regardless of whether the parties or the court below has
        done so.” Granite State Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 351 F.3d 1112,
        1116 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003). To establish standing, a plaintiﬀ “must have (1)
        suﬀered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct
        of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
        decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). This Court recognizes
        “the general principle that a litigant must assert his own legal rights and
        interests and may not ordinarily rely on the rights and interests of third
        parties.” Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1994). Because no
        exceptions to this general rule apply, see id. at 1122 (naming exceptions),
        Johnson only has standing to challenge an injury he suffered.
USCA11 Case: 23-10460       Document: 31-1       Date Filed: 02/07/2024       Page: 14 of 15

        14                       Opinion of the Court                    23-10460

        still subject to dismissal.” Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255,
        1263 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted).
                 Johnson’s proposed amended complaint “[tells] essentially
        the same story” as the operative complaint. See Crawford’s Auto Ctr.,
        Inc., v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 945 F.3d 1150, 1163 (11th Cir.
        2019). His proposed changes fail to improve upon the original
        complaint for two reasons.
               First, the proposed amended complaint still does not show a
        fraudulent scheme. Instead, the only substantive changes to the
        complaint relating to Johnson’s mail and wire fraud claims add
        slightly more detail regarding: Hunt’s campaign announcement,
        Fox and Hunt’s promotion of Hunt’s campaign and website, Fox
        and Hunt’s promotion of Hunt without reference to other
        Republican candidates, Fox’s alleged violations of the Equal Time
        Rule, and Fox’s support of Republican candidates in other
        primaries in 2022. But none of these changes show any actual
        fraud committed by Fox and Hunt.
               Second, at best, the proposed amended pleading adds new
        perjury and false swearing claims under Georgia law. But again,
        these changes do nothing to cure the operative complaint of its
        deﬁciencies. Without amending or improving upon the federal and
        state mail and wire fraud claims, all that remains are the perjury
        and false swearing state law claims. While the district court had
        the discretion to allow Johnson to amend his complaint to
        introduce these two state law claims, it also had the discretion not
        to. Baggett v. First Nat. Bank of Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342, 1352 (11th
USCA11 Case: 23-10460     Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 15 of 15

        23-10460               Opinion of the Court                        15

        Cir. 1997) (“[T]he Court has the discretion to decline to exercise
        supplemental jurisdiction over non-diverse state law claims, where
        the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original
        jurisdiction, but is not required to dismiss the case.”). While the
        district court did not explicitly say so, it did not exercise its
        discretion over the remaining state law claims in dismissing the
        complaint and denying the motion to amend. We discern no abuse
        of discretion.
              Because the proposed amended complaint would not
        survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, amendment
        would be futile. We agree with the district court’s decision to deny
        Johnson’s motion for leave to amend.
                                  III.   Conclusion
                Accordingly, for the above reasons, the district court did not
        err in dismissing Johnson’s complaint for failure to state a claim and
        denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint.
              AFFIRMED.