Lori Mitchell v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 322 F. App'x 674 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
FILED
No. 08-14829 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 31, 2009
THOMAS K. KAHN
D.C. Docket No. 06-00041-CV-T-17-TBM CLERK
LORI MITCHELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
a foreign corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 31, 2009)
Before CARNES, HULL, and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lori Mitchell sued Allstate Insurance Company, alleging claims under Fla.
Stat. § 624.155 for bad faith practices. Allstate moved for summary judgment, which
the district court granted.
The district court granted summary judgment on three independent grounds.
First, the Civil Remedy Notices, required by Fla. Stat. § 624.155(2) (2000) as a
condition precedent to suing an insurer under § 624.155, were inadequate. Second,
Mitchell’s claims were barred by the litigation privilege. Third, Allstate could not be
held liable for the actions of third parties.
Mitchell appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment, arguing only
that the district court erred in concluding that her Civil Remedy Notices were
inadequate. Allstate contends that Mitchell has abandoned any argument that the two
other grounds for summary judgment were inappropriate, and therefore the grant of
summary judgment must be affirmed. We agree. An appellant abandons an issue if
she does not raise it in her initial brief. E.g., Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874
(11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004).
Here, Mitchell does not argue in her initial brief that there was any error in the district
court’s grant of summary judgment based on the litigation privilege or the principle
that Allstate could not be held liable for the actions of third parties. We therefore
consider these issues abandoned. Because there are two other, independent grounds
for the district court’s grant of summary judgment not challenged in this appeal, we
need not decide whether the Civil Remedy Notices were adequate. We affirm the
district court’s grant of summary judgment.
2
AFFIRMED.1
1
This case was originally scheduled for oral argument, but the panel unanimously determined
pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 34-3(f) to decide it without oral argument.
3