Court Opinion

ID: 9916313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 18:01:34.358582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:24:58.871098
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12240   Document: 37-1    Date Filed: 01/09/2024   Page: 1 of 14

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-12240
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

        ELENA DVOINIK,
        Master of Law,
        BORIS ZAVADOVSKY,
        M.D.,
                                                  Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
        versus
        PETER PHILIPP,
        Doctor of Law,
        MARIO RABL,
        Precinct Inspector,
        SUSANNE HOFLINGER,
        District Inspector,
        GUNDA EBHART,
USCA11 Case: 23-12240       Document: 37-1       Date Filed: 01/09/2024      Page: 2 of 14

        2                       Opinion of the Court                    23-12240

        Doctor of Law,
        THOMAS HOFLINGER,

                                                         Defendants-Appellees,

        CLEMENS DIETACHMAIR, et al.,

                                                                    Defendants.

                              ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-01127-TPB-CPT
                            ____________________

        Before BRASHER, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Elena Dvoinik and Boris Zavadovsky (collectively,
        “Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, appeal the dismissal of their civil suit
        in which they complained of actions by the Austrian Defendants
        that occurred within Austria. The district court dismissed with
        prejudice their second amended complaint (the “complaint”) based
        on application of the “act of state” doctrine. On appeal, Plaintiffs
        primarily argue that the doctrine is inapplicable because the
USCA11 Case: 23-12240      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 01/09/2024     Page: 3 of 14

        23-12240               Opinion of the Court                         3

        Defendants were not on duty or acting as state agents during the
        alleged actions.
               Because Plaintiffs’ complaint is based on public acts
        committed by Austrian officials within Austrian territory, we
        affirm the district court’s dismissal with prejudice.
                     I.   COMPLAINT’S ALLEGATIONS
               We first review the complaint’s allegations.
               In their complaint, Plaintiffs brought suit against (1) Mario
        Rabl and Susanne Hoflinger, Austrian police officers, (2) Thomas
        Hoflinger, an Austrian police department IT employee, (3) Gunda
        Ebhart, an Austrian prosecutor, and (4) Peter Philipp, a “prominent
        criminal attorney” in Austria (collectively, “Defendants”).
        Plaintiffs contend that Defendants engaged in a scheme that began
        with and arose out of an allegedly illegal search of Plaintiffs’ house
        in Austria pursuant to a warrant issued by an Austrian court.
               Plaintiffs allege Defendants acted illegally on information a
        witness provided to police, obtained an illegal search warrant for
        Plaintiffs’ house in Austria, conducted a search and illegally seized
        property belonging to Plaintiffs, conducted various investigations
        of Plaintiffs, filed official reports regarding Plaintiffs, threatened
        Plaintiffs with prosecution, and charged them with crimes.
        Plaintiffs presented their claims regarding the allegedly illegal
        search and seizure to the Austrian courts, but the Austrian courts
        rejected the claims.
USCA11 Case: 23-12240      Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 01/09/2024     Page: 4 of 14

        4                      Opinion of the Court                23-12240

        A.    Search and Seizure
               Specifically, Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that on June 15,
        2021, while Plaintiffs were in Florida, “A. Chuprikov” sent Austrian
        authorities a “deliberately false denunciation” by email, indicating
        that Plaintiffs were producing forged documents “for obtaining of
        foreign citizenships” in their house in Gloggnitz, Austria with the
        intent to sell the forged documents.
                Based on Chuprikov’s information, the Austrian authorities
        initiated a criminal investigation and issued a search warrant for
        Plaintiffs’ house on June 30, 2021. The search warrant authorized
        the Austrian authorities to seize exclusively “[e]quipment for
        professional forgery of documents, certificates and other evidence
        (special apparatus; embossed seals and stamps from government
        authorities; UV transillumination device; etc.), forged documents
        as well as other evidence related to the existent suspicion.” (Font
        altered.)
               Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that on July 12, 2021,
        Defendants Susanne and Thomas Hoflinger (Austrian police
        department employees) presented the search warrant to Plaintiffs’
        neighbors, the Rottensteiners, and obtained a key to Plaintiffs’
        house from the Rottensteiners. Plaintiffs contend that the
        Hoflingers entered the house and conducted a search. According
        to Plaintiffs, Thomas Hoflinger used passwords obtained from
        Plaintiffs’ notebooks to (1) log into Plaintiffs’ computers, (2) hack
        Plaintiffs’ emails, and (3) obtain electronically stored information
USCA11 Case: 23-12240       Document: 37-1       Date Filed: 01/09/2024      Page: 5 of 14

        23-12240                Opinion of the Court                            5

        containing Plaintiffs’      personal     and     business    data    and
        correspondence.
               Then, Austrian police officer Rabl allegedly arrived on the
        scene. Plaintiffs allege that police officers Rabl and Susanne
        Hoflinger, along with police employee Thomas Hoflinger,
        “inspected the [P]laintiffs’ personal computers, the [P]laintiffs’
        ESI[,] and chaotically downloaded it.” Plaintiffs allege that police
        officer Rabl seized: (1) two computers; (2) personal documents,
        including U.S. classified information, birth certificates, and
        education certificates; (3) valuable property, including “jewelry and
        antiques worth more than $1 million”; and (4) tax declarations,
        receipts, and proof of authorized deductions.
        B.     Continued RICO Enterprise1
               The day after the search and seizure, police officer Rabl
        called Plaintiffs and informed them of the search. Police officer
        Rabl also recommended that Plaintiffs retain Defendant Philipp as
        their criminal attorney. On July 14, 2021, Plaintiffs emailed police
        officer Rabl regarding case testimony and a criminal complaint
        against Chuprikov. That same day, Plaintiffs also called attorney
        Philipp.

        1 Plaintiffs explicitly state that their claims are limited to RICO acts
        “committed between 7/12/2021 and 11/7/2021.” Thus, we do not discuss
        facts recounted in the complaint that allegedly occurred after November 7,
        2021.
USCA11 Case: 23-12240          Document: 37-1         Date Filed: 01/09/2024          Page: 6 of 14

        6                          Opinion of the Court                         23-12240

               Pursuant to her conversation with Defendant Philipp,
        Plaintiff Dvoinik sent Philipp an email summarizing what had
        happened and listing the seized property. Plaintiffs also requested
        that attorney Philipp “apply by prosecutor’s office an initiation of
        criminal investigation against Chuprikov” for defamation and
        extortion. Defendant Philipp agreed to represent Plaintiffs, “to
        clarify the case matter[,] and to speak to the prosecutor
        investigating the Plaintiffs’ case as soon as possible.”
               As part of the scheme, Plaintiffs allege that on August 11,
        2021, Defendant Philipp “tried to extort a bribe from the Plaintiffs
        in favor of the Defendant Gunda Ebhart [the prosecutor] for the
        return of Plaintiffs[’] property and the termination of the criminal
        investigation” against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs refused to pay the bribe.
        Plaintiffs sent to the prosecutor’s office, by mail, a “criminal
        Complaint against Chuprikov” and “a Complaint” against the
        Austrian police based on the police’s July 12, 2021 search.
              In November 2021, Plaintiffs also filed “a complaint” with
        the Austrian Data Protection Committee, complaining of the
        Austrian police’s disclosure of Plaintiffs’ personal data in Russia and
        abroad. In addition, “Plaintiffs filed multiple complaints with
        Austrian authorities.”2

        2 Plaintiffs’ appellate briefs contain a number of factual allegations that are not

        contained in the operative complaint, and thus we do not recite them.
USCA11 Case: 23-12240        Document: 37-1   Date Filed: 01/09/2024     Page: 7 of 14

        23-12240                Opinion of the Court                       7

                       II.     PROCEDURAL HISTORY
               On May 16, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint
        against Defendants, among others. On August 29, 2022, Defendant
        Philipp moved to dismiss. Then, on October 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed
        an amended complaint. After Plaintiffs filed their first amended
        complaint, the district court denied Defendant Philipp’s motion to
        dismiss as moot.
               On October 28, 2022, Defendants Ebhart, Susanne
        Hoflinger, Thomas Hoflinger, and Rabl filed a motion to dismiss
        the first amended complaint based on, inter alia, the act of state
        doctrine. Additionally, Defendant Philipp filed a number of letters
        with the district court, all of which were in German.
                On March 15, 2023, the district court granted Defendants
        Ebhart, Susanne Hoflinger, Thomas Hoflinger, and Rabl’s motion
        to dismiss and dismissed the first amended complaint without
        prejudice as to all Defendants. In its order, the district court also
        noted that Defendant Philipp raised the act of state doctrine in his
        motion to dismiss the initial complaint but did not move to dismiss
        the first amended complaint.
               The district court further explained that the act of state
        doctrine may be raised sua sponte and that its application turns on
        the nature of the claims asserted rather than the status of a
        particular defendant. Therefore, the district court concluded as to
        all Defendants that the act of state doctrine “appears to foreclose
        Plaintiffs’ claims by their very nature,” but “in an abundance of
USCA11 Case: 23-12240      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 01/09/2024     Page: 8 of 14

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12240

        caution,” the court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
        complaint.
                On April 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their second amended
        complaint, which we refer to as the complaint now at issue. On
        April 24, 2023, Defendants Ebhart, Susanne Hoflinger, Thomas
        Hoflinger, and Rabl filed a motion to dismiss again based on, inter
        alia, the act of state doctrine.
              On May 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a clerk’s default
        against Defendant Philipp.          The district court received
        correspondence from Defendant Philipp in German dated April 18,
        2023 and May 10, 2023 and entered the correspondence on the
        docket on May 17, 2023.
                On June 30, 2023, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’
        complaint with prejudice as to all Defendants. The district court
        incorporated by reference its first, longer dismissal order (as to the
        first amended complaint) that discussed why the act of state
        doctrine applied here. The district court concluded that the current
        complaint “essentially tells the same story and alleges the same
        scheme of extortion and theft involving the Austrian police and
        prosecutors” and that Plaintiffs’ “conclusory assertions” that
        “Defendants’ actions took place while they were off duty and were
        ‘not related to their official duties,’ and that the police and
        prosecutor’s offices were used by Defendants as ‘cover’ for their
        illegal activities” were “belied by the inherent nature of the alleged
        actions themselves as exercises of sovereign power.” The district
        court also terminated any pending motions and deadlines.
USCA11 Case: 23-12240         Document: 37-1   Date Filed: 01/09/2024      Page: 9 of 14

        23-12240                 Opinion of the Court                        9

               Plaintiffs also filed four other federal lawsuits in the United
        States related to the incidents alleged in this case. See 8:22-cv-
        01700-CEH-STF (M.D. Fla.); 1:22-cv-24226-JEM (S.D. Fla.); 8:23-cv-
        00623-KKM-CPT (M.D. Fla.); 1:23-cv-04216-LTS (S.D.N.Y.).
        Relevant to this appeal, Plaintiffs brought suit against the Republic
        of Austria “for the activities of [the alleged] RICO [e]nterprise.” See
        8:22-cv-01700-CEH-STF.
                       III.     STANDARD OF REVIEW
               We review de novo the applicability of the act of state
        doctrine. Comparelli v. Republica Bolivariana de Venez., 891 F.3d
        1311, 1318 (11th Cir. 2018).
               We construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally. Alba v.
        Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). However, issues
        raised for the first time in a reply brief are considered abandoned.
        Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
                                IV.   DISCUSSION
        A.     Act of State Doctrine
               The act of state doctrine is a judicially created rule that
        “precludes the courts of this country from inquiring into the
        validity of the public acts a recognized foreign sovereign power
        committed within its own territory.” Banco Nacional de Cuba v.
        Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 401 (1964); see also Mezerhane v. Republica
        Bolivariana de Venez., 785 F.3d 545, 551-52 (11th Cir. 2015). The
        doctrine stands on the principle that “conduct of one independent
        government cannot be successfully questioned in the courts of
USCA11 Case: 23-12240     Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 01/09/2024     Page: 10 of 14

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 23-12240

        another,” because “permit[ting] the validity of the acts of one
        sovereign state to be reexamined and perhaps condemned by the
        courts of another would very certainly imperil the amicable
        relations between governments and vex the peace of nations.”
        Banco Nacional de Cuba, 376 U.S. at 417-18 (citations and internal
        quotations omitted).
                The act of state doctrine applies where a court is required to
        declare invalid the official act of a foreign sovereign, done within
        its own territory. W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Env’t. Tectonics Corp.,
        Int’l, 493 U.S. 400, 405-06 (1990); Mezerhane, 785 F.3d at 552. This
        doctrine is premised on (1) “international comity,” (2) “respect for
        the sovereignty of foreign nations on their own territory,” and (3)
        domestic separation of powers concerns—the “strong sense of the
        Judicial Branch that its engagement in the task of passing on the
        validity of foreign acts of state may hinder the conduct of foreign
        affairs.” See W.S. Kirkpatrick, 493 U.S. at 404, 408 (quotation marks
        omitted).
               Here, we conclude that the district court did not err in
        dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice under the act of
        state doctrine. Plaintiffs’ complaint almost exclusively concerns
        events that they alleged happened in Austria and that were
        performed in an alleged scheme by Austrian law enforcement, the
        Austrian prosecutor, defense counsel, and the Austrian judiciary.
        The only link this case has to the United States is that the named
        Plaintiffs happen to reside in Florida. Yet Plaintiffs seek to have
        United States courts determine the validity of Austrian officials’
USCA11 Case: 23-12240      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 01/09/2024      Page: 11 of 14

        23-12240                Opinion of the Court                         11

        actions in Austria, which the act of state doctrine prohibits. See
        Banco Nacional de Cuba, 376 U.S. at 401; Mezerhane, 785 F.3d at 552.
        This type of scrutiny over Austrian officials’ actions could “imperil
        the amicable relations between [the] governments.” See Banco
        Nacional de Cuba, 376 U.S. at 417-18.
               Plaintiffs argue that the act of state doctrine does not bar
        their case because Defendants are either not officials or were not
        on duty. The crux of this argument is that because the search of
        Plaintiffs’ home in Austria was performed without a valid search
        warrant and exceeded the scope of the search warrant, Defendants
        were not “on duty.” Plaintiffs also contend that their property in
        Austria was “seized without authority” because the scope of the
        search warrant did not extend to items unrelated to forgery and did
        not provide for the search of Plaintiffs’ computers.
                Nonetheless, the act of state doctrine still applies because the
        district court and our Court are necessarily being asked to declare
        invalid the official acts of Austria, including the issuance of search
        warrants and criminal charges. See Banco Nacional de Cuba, 376 U.S.
        at 401; W.S. Kirkpatrick, 493 U.S. at 405-06; Mezerhane, 785 F.3d at
        552. The alleged acts of Defendants, whether valid or not, were
        ostensibly exercises of Austrian police power, were carried out
        entirely within Austria, and involved a search and seizure affirmed
        as legal by the Austrian courts.
               At bottom, the factual predicate for Plaintiffs’ claim is that
        an official act of a foreign sovereign was invalid. See W.S.
        Kirkpatrick, 493 U.S. at 405. As such, Plaintiffs’ suit is barred by the
USCA11 Case: 23-12240        Document: 37-1         Date Filed: 01/09/2024         Page: 12 of 14

        12                         Opinion of the Court                       23-12240

        act of state doctrine. See, e.g., Nocula v. UGS Corp., 520 F.3d 719, 728
        (7th Cir. 2008) (holding that a lawsuit against a corporation for
        losing computers which allegedly were wrongfully seized by the
        Polish authorities in connection with criminal prosecution and
        “mysteriously disappeared” was barred by the act of state doctrine
        because it necessarily called for “an inquiry into the acts of a foreign
        sovereign” (quotation marks omitted)); Hourani v. Mirtchev, 796
        F.3d 1, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (holding that a defamation lawsuit was
        barred because it could not be decided “without a court having to
        inquire into the legal validity or tortiousness” of statements on the
        Kazakh embassy website); see also W.S. Kirkpatrick, 493 U.S. at 405
        (stating that treating a sovereign action as “tortious would have
        required denying [it] legal effect”); Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S.
        250, 251, 253-54 (1897) (holding that the alleged acts of the
        defendant military commander in detaining the plaintiff “were the
        acts of the government of Venezuela, and as such are not properly
        the subject of adjudication in the courts of another government”
        (quotation marks omitted)).
        B.      Second Hickenlooper Amendment
              In their reply brief, Plaintiffs also cite the Second
        Hickenlooper Amendment. 3 Because Plaintiffs raised their

        3 Congress passed the Second Hickenlooper Amendment in response to the

        Supreme Court’s decision in Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino. See Fogade v.
        ENB Revocable Tr., 263 F.3d 1274, 1293-94 (11th Cir. 2001) (concluding the
        Second Hickenlooper Amendment “overrule[d], at least with respect to
        confiscations of property, the Sabbatino decision to the extent that it held that
USCA11 Case: 23-12240         Document: 37-1          Date Filed: 01/09/2024          Page: 13 of 14

        23-12240                    Opinion of the Court                                 13

        Hickenlooper argument for the first time in their reply brief, we
        are not required to consider whether the Second Hickenlooper
        Amendment applies here. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874.
               And in any event, Defendants Ebhart, Susanne Hoflinger,
        Thomas Hoflinger, and Rabl moved to strike the Hickenlooper
        argument in Plaintiffs’ appellate reply brief. Then Plaintiffs
        responded with their own motion to strike the Defendants’ motion
        and stated that Plaintiffs are not asking this Court to apply the
        Second Hickenlooper Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ motion
        to strike stated they “did not ask the Court to apply Second
        Hickenlooper Amendment” and referenced the Second
        Hickenlooper Amendment solely “with the purpose to explain
        law.” Thus, we need not consider the Second Hickenlooper
        Amendment for this reason too. 4
        C.      Plaintiﬀs’ Motion for Clerk’s Default Against Philipp
               Finally, in their appellate brief, Plaintiﬀs assert that they were
        entitled to have the clerk enter default judgment against Defendant
        Philipp under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1). Rule
        55(b)(1) requires the clerk to enter judgment against a defendant
        who has been defaulted for not appearing “[i]f the plaintiﬀ’s claim

        the act of state doctrine would apply without regard to whether a foreign
        state’s actions violated international law”).
        4 In light of the above, the Court denies (1) Defendants-Appellees’ motion to

        strike portions of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ reply brief and (2) Plaintiffs-Appellants’
        motion to strike the Appellees’ motion and to impose sanctions on their
        attorney.
USCA11 Case: 23-12240     Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 01/09/2024    Page: 14 of 14

        14                     Opinion of the Court                23-12240

        is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by
        computation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(1). For entry of default
        judgment by the clerk, the plaintiﬀ must submit “an aﬃdavit
        showing the amount due.” Id.
               Plaintiﬀs’ argument about a default judgment fails for two
        reasons. First, Plaintiﬀs’ appellate brief contains only conclusory
        references to a default judgment in their “Statement of the Issues”
        and “Statement of the Case” that do not show why Rule 55(b)(1)
        applies here. So, Plaintiﬀs have abandoned any argument regarding
        default against Defendant Philipp. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
        Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681-82 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that a party
        abandons an issue by making only passing references to it in the
        statement of the case, the summary of the argument, or the
        argument sections of a brief ).
               Second, even assuming arguendo that Plaintiﬀs properly
        presented their default judgment argument, they have made no
        showing that their claim is “for a sum certain or a sum that can be
        made certain by computation” and they did not submit “an aﬃdavit
        showing the amount due” in the district court. See FED. R. CIV. P.
        55(b)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiﬀs have failed to show any default
        judgment was proper.
                             V.    CONCLUSION
                For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s
        dismissal of Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint with prejudice as
        to all Defendants.
              AFFIRMED.