John J. Jacobs, Jr. v. Emilio Estefan
705 F. App'x 829
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff John J. Jacobs, Jr. sued Estefan Enterprises (and Emilio Estefan) for claims arising from a proposed 1999 business project; this was his fourth lawsuit on the same subject.
- The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the fourth complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as time-barred and on collateral-estoppel grounds, and enjoined further related filings with limited exceptions.
- Jacobs alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress and libel in the fourth suit, but the complaint referenced injuries occurring in 2005 and no later actionable date.
- Jacobs argued the limitations period began on October 23, 2007 (an email), and that his earlier filings related back; he challenged only the statute-of-limitations ruling on appeal.
- The district court found the claims untimely (negligence: 4-year limit; libel: 2-year limit under Florida law); the First suit (filed Aug. 12, 2011) had previously been held time-barred as well.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding the complaint plainly showed the claims accrued in 2005 (or at latest 2007 per Jacobs), and the 2015 filing was outside the applicable limitations period; no tolling or relation-back saved the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jacobs’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations | Limitations began Oct. 23, 2007 (email), making earlier suits timely or allowing relation back | Claims accrued in 2005 (or at latest 2007) and were filed after applicable Florida limitations; no tolling or relation-back applies | Affirmed: claims time‑barred under Florida law; dismissal with prejudice proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Arce v. Garcia, 434 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2006) (policy purposes of statutes of limitations)
- Burnett v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co., 380 U.S. 424 (1965) (statutes of limitations prevent litigation of stale claims)
- Foudy v. Indian River Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 845 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Gonsalvez v. Celebrity Cruises Inc., 750 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2014) (dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds where complaint shows claim is time-barred)
- La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840 (11th Cir. 2004) (statute-of-limitations dismissal standard)
- Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. City of Claxton, Ga., 720 F.2d 1230 (11th Cir. 1983) (apply state statute of limitations in diversity cases)
- Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740 (1980) (state law governs when action is commenced for statute-of-limitations purposes in diversity cases)
- Totura & Co. v. Williams, 754 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2000) (an action is commenced for limitations purposes when a complaint is filed under Florida law)
- Szabo v. Essex Chem. Corp., 461 So. 2d 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (Florida rule that an action is commenced by filing a complaint)