MCO Airport Concessions, LLC v. Greater Orlando Aviation Authority , 508 F. App'x 920 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •          Case: 12-11400   Date Filed: 02/13/2013   Page: 1 of 4
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    _____________
    No. 12-11400
    _____________
    D. C. Docket No. 6:11-cv-00742-ACC-GJK
    MCO AIRPORT CONCESSIONS, LLC,
    a Florida limited liability company,
    ORLANDO AIRSIDE INVESTMENTS, LLC,
    a Florida limited liability company,
    SUPERIOR HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC,
    a Florida limited liability company,
    TYRONE W. NABBIE,
    an individual,
    BASSEL MAALI,
    an individual,
    CHAD MAALI,
    an individual,
    JIHAD MAALI,
    an individual,
    MANAR MAALI,
    an individual,
    SAAD MAALI,
    an individual,
    RANDA MAALI-ITANI,
    Plaintiffs – Appellants,
    versus
    GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION AUTHORITY,
    an agency of the City of Orlando,
    Case: 12-11400        Date Filed: 02/13/2013      Page: 2 of 4
    CITY OF ORLANDO,
    STEVE GARDNER,
    an individual,
    CHRIS SCHMIDT,
    an individual,
    ROBERT L. GILBERT,
    an individual,
    Defendants – Appellees.
    ______________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ______________
    (February 13, 2013)
    Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARTIN and ALARCÓN, * Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    This case concerns a failed bid for a concessions contract in Airside 3 of the
    Orlando International Airport. Appellants claim the Greater Orlando Aviation
    Authority, the City of Orlando, the Executive Director of the Authority, Steve
    Gardner, and two Deputy Executive Directors of the Authority, Chris Schmidt and
    Robert L. Gilbert (collectively “Appellees”), conducted a rigged bid process when
    awarding the concessions contract to Areas/Hojeij-JV with the intent to
    discriminate against Appellants on account of their race, color, national origin, and
    religion. The district court dismissed their ten-count first amended complaint
    *
    Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by
    designation.
    2
    Case: 12-11400      Date Filed: 02/13/2013       Page: 3 of 4
    because Appellants lacked standing to sue Appellees directly. It also denied
    Appellants’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and to add an
    additional party because granting the motion would be futile as Appellants failed to
    plausibly state any claims for relief.1
    The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether the district court erred in
    dismissing Appellants’ first amended complaint because Appellants did not have
    standing to sue Appellees directly; and (2) whether the district court erred in
    denying Appellants’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint and add an
    additional party because Appellants failed to state a claim upon which relief could
    be granted.
    “We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under
    Rule 12(b)(6).” Redland Co., Inc. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 
    568 F.3d 1232
    , 1234
    (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). “[T]he appellate court must accept the factual
    allegations of the complaint as true and may affirm . . . ‘only if it is clear that no
    relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with
    the allegations.’” Mesocap Ind. Ltd. v. Torm Lines, 
    194 F.3d 1342
    , 1343 (11th Cir.
    1999) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 
    467 U.S. 69
    , 73, 
    104 S. Ct. 2229
    , 2232
    (1984)).
    1
    The district court also found all Appellants, except MCO Airport Concessions, LLC, lacked
    standing to bring a derivative suit under the proposed second amended complaint.
    3
    Case: 12-11400     Date Filed: 02/13/2013   Page: 4 of 4
    “[T]his court reviews standing de novo.” Eng’g Contractors Ass’n of S.
    Fla., Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 
    122 F.3d 895
    , 903 (11th Cir. 1997).
    The court generally reviews the denial of a motion to amend for abuse of
    discretion, however, “when the district court denies the plaintiff leave to amend
    due to futility, we review the denial de novo because it is concluding that as a
    matter of law an amended complaint would necessarily fail.” Fla. Evergreen
    Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 
    470 F.3d 1036
    , 1040 (11th Cir. 2006)
    (internal quotation marks omitted).
    After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit
    of oral argument, we affirm the granting of Appellees’ motion to dismiss and the
    denial of Appellants’ motion for leave to amend based on the district court’s well-
    reasoned order filed on February 14, 2012.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-11400

Citation Numbers: 508 F. App'x 920

Judges: Dubina, Martin, Abarcón

Filed Date: 2/13/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024