Bailey v. Cumberland Casualty & Surety Co. ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                         [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    MAY 11, 2006
    No. 05-13740                 THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar                CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 04-02162-CV-TMP-W
    BETTY LOU BAILEY, individually
    and on behalf of all others
    similarly situated,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    CUMBERLAND CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY,
    DORINCO REINSURANCE COMPANY,
    JOSEPH M. WILLIAMS,
    CAROL S. BLACK,
    FERNANDO RUIZ,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Alabama
    _________________________
    (May 11, 2006)
    Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Betty Lou Bailey appeals the dismissal with prejudice of her putative class
    action on the ground that the statute of limitations for her securities fraud claims
    had expired. Bailey argues that the magistrate judge erroneously determined that
    her cause of action accrued when she was first notified that her investment was no
    longer insured. Bailey also argues that the magistrate judge abused his discretion
    when he declined to grant leave to amend. We affirm.
    I. BACKGROUND
    In fall 1998, an investment advisor representing Associated Investment
    Management, Inc. (AIM), a securities brokerage firm, contacted Bailey. AIM
    offered Bailey the opportunity to invest in its Insured Risk Management Program.
    Under the Program, AIM would manage Bailey’s investment by purchasing and
    selling shares in mutual funds. Bailey would receive a percentage of the profits
    from this trading, but the key feature of the Program was that the principal she
    invested would be insured against loss. The Program required Bailey to continue
    her investment for five years.
    In October 1998, Bailey invested approximately $44,000 in the Program.
    On October 16, 1999, Bailey “rolled up” the to-date profits of her account, which
    2
    was then valued at more than $48,000. By “rolling up” her account, Bailey
    renewed the five-year investment period.
    The Cumberland Casualty and Surety Company and Dorinco Reinsurance
    Company, defendants in this action, provided the insurance for the Program
    through an agreement with AIM. This agreement limited AIM to certain “trading
    protocols” when managing accounts in the Program, but AIM did not follow these
    protocols. In April 2001, Cumberland and Dorinco cancelled the insurance policy
    covering the Program.
    In May 2001, AIM or one of its agents notified Bailey that the insurance
    coverage of her investment account had been cancelled by Cumberland and
    Dorinco. The letter stated that AIM believed the cancellation was wrongful and
    that AIM would contest it. The letter also advised Bailey that she was still
    “bound” by the five-year investment period.
    The value of Bailey’s account steadily declined from 2000 until the
    expiration of her investment period on October 16, 2004. In July 2004, Bailey and
    other investors in the Program filed this action against Cumberland, Dorinco, and
    several of their employees (but not AIM or its employees). The putative class
    alleged the defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15
    3
    U.S.C. § 78j, and various state laws. The parties consented to the exercise of
    dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c).
    Cumberland and Dorinco moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and
    failure to file within the statute of limitations. The magistrate judge found that
    Bailey’s cause of action against Cumberland and Dorinco accrued when she was
    notified that the insurance companies had cancelled their coverage of the Program
    and expired well before July 2004. The magistrate judge also found that Bailey
    was not entitled to equitable tolling because the assertions of AIM that the
    insurance would be reinstated could not be attributed to Cumberland or Dorinco.
    The magistrate judge alternatively concluded that Bailey failed to plead with
    particularity her claim under section 10(b).
    The magistrate judge dismissed with prejudice Bailey’s section 10(b) claim.
    Bailey’s state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. The magistrate judge
    denied the other members of the putative class leave select another representative.
    II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    This Court reviews de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss and “accepts as
    true the factual allegations in a plaintiff’s complaint and construes the facts in the
    light most favorable to a plaintiff.” Kirwin v. Price Commc’ns Corp., 
    391 F.3d 1323
    , 1325 (11th Cir. 2004). “We review the district court’s refusal to grant leave
    4
    to amend for abuse of discretion, although ‘we review de novo the underlying legal
    conclusion of whether a particular amendment to the complaint would be futile.’”
    Ziemba v. Cascade Int’l, Inc., 
    256 F.3d 1194
    , 1199 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting
    Harris v. Ivax Corp., 
    182 F.3d 799
    , 802 (11th Cir. 1999)).
    III. DISCUSSION
    Our discussion is divided into two parts. First, we address Bailey’s
    argument that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was erroneous. Because we conclude
    that the statute of limitations expired, we decline to address whether Bailey
    pleaded with particularity her securities fraud claim. Second, we discuss whether
    the magistrate judge abused his discretion when he declined to grant the putative
    class leave to identify another lead plaintiff.
    A. Bailey Failed to File Her Securities Fraud Claim
    Within the Statute of Limitations.
    The statute of limitations for private suit under section 10(b) of the
    Exchange Act begins to run at the “discovery of the facts constituting the
    violation.” Theoharous v. Fong, 
    256 F.3d 1219
    , 1228 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting
    Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 
    501 U.S. 350
    , 364, 
    111 S. Ct. 2773
    , 2782 (1991)). “Discovery occurs when a potential plaintiff has inquiry
    or actual notice of a violation.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Kauthar SDN BHD v. Sternberg, 
    149 F.3d 659
    , 670 (7th Cir. 1998)). “Inquiry notice is triggered by evidence of the
    5
    possibility of fraud, not full exposition of the scam itself.” Id. at 1228 (quoting
    Sterlin v. Biomune Sys., 
    154 F.3d 1191
    , 1203 (10th Cir. 1998)). The statute of
    limitations begins to run as soon as the plaintiff is “on notice that something may
    have been amiss.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Sterlin, 
    154 F.3d at 1203
    ).
    The statute of limitations for Bailey’s securities fraud claim against
    Cumberland and Dorinco began to run when she received the letter that they no
    longer insured the Program. The letter provided actual notice to Bailey that
    Cumberland and Dorinco would not perform under their agreement with AIM, and
    she was at least on inquiry notice that the Program would not be insured at all. The
    assurances of AIM that it would seek to reinstate the insurance coverage may have
    been enough to trigger equitable tolling against AIM, but not against Cumberland
    and Dorinco.
    With May 2001 as the time of accrual of Bailey’s action, even the longer
    statute of limitations under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act expired well before Bailey
    filed her action in July 2004. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1658
    (b) (defining the statute of
    limitations as “the earlier of—(1) 2 years after the discovery of the facts
    constituting the violation; or (2) 5 years after such violation”). Because
    amendment of Bailey’s complaint would not have remedied this defect, granting
    6
    leave to amend would have been futile. See Harris, 
    182 F.3d at 807-08
    . The
    magistrate judge did not err when he dismissed Bailey’s complaint with prejudice.
    B. The Magistrate Judge Did Not Abuse His Discretion
    When He Denied the Putative Class Leave to Identify
    Another Lead Plaintiff.
    Bailey argues that the magistrate judge abused his discretion because he
    denied the putative class the opportunity to identify another lead plaintiff, but
    Bailey cites no authority for this proposition. Each of the cases cited by Bailey
    deals with a class that was already certified. See, e.g., Birmingham Steel Corp. v.
    TVA, 
    353 F.3d 1331
    , 1340 (11th Cir. 2003). In Birmingham Steel, we reversed
    the decertification of a class based on the inadequacy of the class representative
    when the district court failed to provide leave to find a suitable substitution. 
    Id. at 1342
    . Central to our decision was that “once certified, a class acquires a legal
    status separate from that of the named plaintiffs.” 
    Id.
     at 1336 (citing Lynch v.
    Baxley, 
    651 F.2d 387
    , 388 (5th Cir. Unit B July 1981)); see also Sosna v. Iowa,
    
    419 U.S. 393
    , 399, 
    95 S. Ct. 553
    , 557 (1975).
    The putative class represented by Bailey was never certified and never
    achieved this separate legal status. Further, the members of the putative class are
    not prejudiced by the decision of the magistrate judge because their individual
    claims were tolled from the time the class action was filed until the complaint was
    7
    dismissed. See Griffin v. Singletary, 
    17 F.3d 356
    , 360 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting
    Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 
    462 U.S. 345
    , 353-54, 
    103 S. Ct. 2392
    , 2397-
    98 (1983)). The magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied the
    putative class the opportunity to identify another lead plaintiff.
    IV. CONCLUSION
    Because Bailey’s complaint is barred by the statute of limitations and the
    magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied the putative class the
    opportunity to identify another lead plaintiff, we
    AFFIRM.
    8