Black Diamond Land Management LLC v. Twin Pines Coal Inc., 707 F. App'x 576

Plaintiff Black Diamond Management, LLC sued Twin Pines, Drummond, Molpus, SWF Birmingham, Valley Creek Land & Timber, and others, alleging they collected and sold coal and timber that belonged to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff sent letters and notices to some defendants (e.g., Twin Pines, Drummond) asserting ownership; alleges other defendants knew or had reason to know they were taking Plaintiff’s timber.
Complaint asserts federal claims under the Lanham Act, RICO, and the Sherman Act, plus state-law conversion, negligence, and civil conspiracy claims.
District court dismissed the federal claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as inadequately pleaded and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; Plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed: Plaintiff failed to plead facts supporting (a) enforceable trademark rights or false advertising under the Lanham Act; (b) requisite predicate acts/scienter for RICO (18 U.S.C. § 2314); and (c) a proper Sherman Act § 3 claim (which applies to U.S. territories, not states).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lanham Act liability (false association/false advertising)	Defendants falsely represent they own and sell the resources; Black Diamond is an (unregistered) mark used in commerce	Plaintiff fails to plead an enforceable mark, any confusingly similar use, false commercial advertising, or that misrepresentations caused commercial injury	Dismissed — complaint lacks factual allegations of trademark rights, false statements, or proximate commercial injury under § 1125(a)
RICO (predicate acts under 18 U.S.C. § 2314)	Defendants transported stolen natural resources interstate, satisfying predicate acts and scienter	Plaintiff pleads only conclusory knowledge allegations and cannot establish defendants knew the property was stolen when transported	Dismissed — insufficient factual allegations that defendants knew property was stolen or converted; cannot rely on bare assertions
Sherman Act § 3 claim	Defendants conspired to restrain trade in Alabama; § 3 applies	Section 3 applies to U.S. territories (term of art), not states like Alabama	Dismissed — § 3 does not reach restraints occurring within a State (Alabama)
Declaratory judgment / supplemental jurisdiction	Plaintiff sought declaratory relief tied to federal claims	Federal claims dismissed; court lacks independent federal-question jurisdiction	Dismissed — district court correctly declined jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims

Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; legal conclusions insufficient)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) (Lanham Act causes of action and proximate commercial injury requirement)
Custom Mfg. & Eng’g, Inc. v. Midway Servs., Inc., 508 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 2007) (false association requires enforceable trademark rights)
Suntree Techs., Inc. v. Ecosense Int’l, Inc., 693 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2012) (likelihood of consumer confusion standard)
POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014) (Lanham Act reaches certain false advertising beyond trademark law)
Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A., 119 F.3d 935 (11th Cir. 1997) (plaintiff must plead elements of predicate crimes for RICO)
Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO pattern and enterprise requirements)
Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (RICO enterprise guidance)
Maldonado-Burgos v. United States, 844 F.3d 339 (1st Cir. 2016) (distinction between U.S. territories and states for Sherman Act § 3)
Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estée Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015) (Sherman Act § 2: pleading market and dangerous probability of monopoly power)