Maurice Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corporation

Case: 14-15222 Date Filed: 04/15/2016 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15222
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-23370-JEM
MAURICE SYMONETTE,
BOSS GROUP MINISTRIES,
FERRIS RHODES, JR.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
V.A. LEASING CORPORATION,
EURO MOTORSPORTS SALES,
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 15, 2016)
Case: 14-15222 Date Filed: 04/15/2016 Page: 2 of 7
Before HULL, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Symonette and Ferris Rhodes, Jr. appeal the district court’s
dismissal of their complaint alleging that V.A. Leasing Corporation (“V.A.
Leasing”) and Euro Motor Sport, Inc. (“Euro”) defrauded them in connection with
a vehicle lease. On appeal, they argue that the district court erred in finding that
Symonette is not a real party in interest and in dismissing Rhodes, Jr.’s complaint
for failure to state a claim.
I.
We review our own jurisdiction de novo and must raise the issue sua sponte.
Finn v. Prudential-Bache Secur., Inc., 821 F.2d 581, 585 (11th Cir. 1987). Notices
of appeal must “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.”
Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). Rule 3’s dictates are jurisdictional in nature, and their
satisfaction is a prerequisite to appellate review. Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244,
248, 112 S. Ct. 678, 681, 116 L. Ed. 2d 678 (1992). However, it is contrary to the
spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to avoid decisions on the merits on
the basis of mere technicalities such as an inept but effective notice of appeal.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181, 83 S. Ct. 227, 229, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962).
We liberally construe the requirements of Rule 3. Smith, 502 U.S. at 248, 112 S.
Ct. at 681. An appeal is not lost if a mistake is made in designating the judgment
2
Case: 14-15222 Date Filed: 04/15/2016 Page: 3 of 7
appealed from where it is clear that the overriding intent was effectively to appeal.
KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 465 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006). We
have liberally allowed appeals from orders not expressly designated in the notice
of appeal, at least where the order that was not designated was entered before the
order properly designated in the notice of appeal. Id.
Here, the notice of appeal explicitly states that the appeal is taken from the
denial of Symonette’s motion to reconsider—not the district court’s judgment.
However, it is evident from the notice that the overriding intent was to appeal the
district court’s judgment. Consistent with our liberal construction of Rule 3’s
requirements and of pleadings filed by pro se parties generally, we have
jurisdiction to review the district court’s judgment.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Hill
v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). When evaluating a motion to
dismiss, we look to see whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Surtain v.
Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2015). Further, in a pro
se action, we construe the complaint more liberally than we would pleadings
drafted by lawyers. Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990).
3
Case: 14-15222 Date Filed: 04/15/2016 Page: 4 of 7
An action must be brought by the real party in interest. Fed. R. Civ. P.
17(a)(1). This rule protects the defendant against a subsequent action by the real
party in interest and ensures that judgments have res judicata effect. Steger v. GE,
318 F.3d 1066, 1080 (11th Cir. 2003). A real party in interest is “the party who, by
the substantive law, has the right sought to be enforced.” Lubbock Feed Lots, Inc.
v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 630 F.2d 250, 257 (5th Cir. 1980).
Symonette is not a signatory to the lease at issue, which was signed by
Rhodes, Jr. and was intended for the benefit of Boss Group Ministries.
Symonette’s only alleged connections to the lease are that he gave Boss Group
Ministries some of the purchase money and that he serves as president of that
corporation. These connections are not sufficient to make him a real party in
interest to this case, and the district court correctly dismissed his complaint.
III.
As of December 1, 2014, when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s
report, we review only for plain error and only if necessary in the interests of
justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1. Before that date, when a party failed to object, our
practice was to review the district court’s findings of fact for plain error and its
legal conclusions de novo. Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300-1306 (11th
Cir. 2013) (criticizing, but applying, the rule announced in Nettles v. Wainwright,
4
Case: 14-15222 Date Filed: 04/15/2016 Page: 5 of 7
677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982)). Under plain error review, we can correct an
error only when (1) an error has occurred, (2) the error was plain, (3) the error
affected substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity
or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,
197 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
The Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) requires certain disclosures in credit
transactions and imposes liability for any failure to disclose a required fact. See In
re Smith, 737 F.2d 1549, 1551 (11th Cir. 1984). TILA explicitly does not apply to
“[c]redit transactions involving extensions of credit primarily for business,
commercial, or agricultural purposes.” 15 U.S.C. § 1603(1). Similarly, the
Consumer Leasing Act (“CLA”) applies only to a “consumer lease,” a term which
does not include “a lease for agricultural, business, or commercial purposes.” 15
U.S.C. § 1667(1).
Civil claims under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (“RICO”) must allege a “pattern of racketeering activity,” which requires at
least two predicate acts of racketeering activities as defined by 18 U.S.C.
§ 1961(1). Greenblatt v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 763 F.2d 1352, 1358
(11th Cir. 1985). Violations of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes are
racketeering activities. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). When a RICO claim is predicated on
an underlying crime of mail or wire fraud, the complaint must comply with the
5
Case: 14-15222 Date Filed: 04/15/2016 Page: 6 of 7
heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna
Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010). To avoid dismissal, the plaintiffs
must specify (1) the precise statements, documents, or misrepresentations made;
(2) the time, place, and person responsible for the statement; (3) the content and
manner in which these statements misled the plaintiffs; and (4) what the defendants
gained by the alleged fraud. Brooks v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.,
116 F.3d 1364, 1380-81 (11th Cir. 1997). The purpose of this Rule is to ensure
that defendants are reasonably notified of the fraud alleged. Id. at 1381. In
addition, “[i]n a case involving multiple defendants . . . the complaint should
inform each defendant of the nature of his alleged participation in the fraud.”
Ambrosia Coal & Constr. Co. v. Pages Morales, 482 F.3d 1309, 1317 (11th Cir.
2007) (quotation omitted) (brackets and ellipsis in original).
Because the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was issued
before Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1 became effective and without Rhodes, Jr. being
informed of the consequences of Rule 3-1, we review the magistrate judge’s
findings of fact for plain error and legal conclusions de novo, notwithstanding
Rhodes, Jr.’s failure to object.
Here, Rhodes, Jr. has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his
TILA and CLA claims because the lease of the Rolls Royce was for business rather
than consumer purposes. Rhodes, Jr. has also not shown that the district court
6
Case: 14-15222 Date Filed: 04/15/2016 Page: 7 of 7
erred in concluding that he had not pleaded his RICO claim with specificity. He
points to no allegations in his complaint that indicate what specific
communications were fraudulent. He also failed to allege the time, place, and
person responsible for the statements, the content, and manner in which these
statements misled the plaintiffs, or what the defendants gained by the alleged
fraud. The district court did not err in dismissing the TILA, CLA, and RICO
claims.
AFFIRMED.
7