Court Opinion

ID: 9949645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 14:01:17.456566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:46.575998
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11302   Document: 37-1    Date Filed: 03/12/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-11302
                         ____________________

       STEVEN LUDWIG,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       DEUTSCHE BANK AG, et al.,

                                                          Defendants,

       DB USA CORE CORPORATION,

                                                 Defendant-Appellee.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11302     Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 03/12/2024    Page: 2 of 3

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11302

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cv-00910-MMH-MCR
                          ____________________

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Steven Ludwig appeals the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dis-
       missal, with prejudice, of his claim against DB USA Core Corpora-
       tion under the Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. § § 448.102,
       448.103. Following oral argument and a review of the record, we
       affirm.
               The district court dismissed Mr. Ludwig’s second amended
       complaint on two grounds. First, it ruled that the second amended
       complaint contained only “threadbare and conclusory allegations”
       as to Mr. Ludwig’s objections to DB USA’s alleged violations. See
       D.E. 55 at 18. Second, it ruled that the second amended complaint
       failed to plausibly allege causation—that Mr. Ludwig’s termination
       was causally linked to his objections. See id. at 22-24.
               On appeal, Mr. Ludwig challenges the first basis for dismis-
       sal, arguing that the district court improperly applied a heightened
       pleading standard. See Appellant’s Br. at 14-17. But he does not
       argue in any way that the district court’s second basis for dismis-
       sal—the failure to plausibly plead causation—was erroneous.
       When a district court bases its dismissal of a complaint on multiple
       independent grounds, an appellant needs to show that each ground
USCA11 Case: 22-11302     Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 03/12/2024    Page: 3 of 3

       22-11302               Opinion of the Court                        3

       is erroneous in order to obtain a reversal. If he fails to challenge
       one of those grounds, he has abandoned any challenge to that
       ground, and the judgment is due to be affirmed. See Sapuppo v. All-
       state Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). That is
       the case here, as Mr. Ludwig has not argued that the district court
       erred in ruling that he failed to plausibly allege causation. Conse-
       quently, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his second
       amended complaint.
             AFFIRMED.