636 F. App'x 476
11th Cir.2015Background
- Harris, proceeding pro se but licensed to practice law, sues OBS and several international entities and firms alleging GTSA, federal RICO, Georgia RICO, and common law fraud.
- IP developed by Anoigma Ltd. was transferred to Cloud Sante S.A.S. (CS); OBS allegedly facilitated transfer and involvement through Orange and Cristofini.
- Cristofini joined Anoigma, later became CS shareholder/officer; subsequent transfers and bankruptcies harmed Anoigma and Harris’s shares.
- Harris obtained a negative English judgment for wrongful termination against Anoigma/CS; defendants allegedly moved Anoigma and CS into bankruptcy and transferred IP to Almerys.
- Harris previously sued in Illinois; the Illinois court dismissed for forum non conveniens; she did not appeal that dismissal.
- The district court granted OBS’s dismissal for lack of standing and dismissed non-OBS defendants for failure to serve; final judgment followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue RICO claims against OBS | Harris alleges direct injuries from RICO acts harming her as a shareholder/creditor. | Standing lacking because injuries are derivative of Anoigma’s harm to its corporate value. | Harris lacks standing; injuries are derivative of Anoigma’s harm. |
| Standing to sue GTSA claim against OBS | Harris claims she had an actionable interest in the IP and thus standing. | Plaintiff lacks ownership/possession or actionable interest in the IP. | Harris lacks standing; GTSA claim fails. |
| Common law fraud against OBS | OBS owed fiduciary duties via Cristofini and had duty to disclose material facts. | No duty; no confidential relationship with OBS; no basis to impose disclosure duty. | Fraud claim fails; no recognized duty to disclose. |
| Timely service on non-OBS defendants | Foreign service rules differ; six-month/service limits not applicable to foreign defendants. | Plaintiff failed to exercise diligence; no service on foreign defendants for eight-plus months. | District court did not abuse discretion; dismissal for lack of timely service ok. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens Gardens Office Bldg., Inc. v. Barnett Banks of Florida, Inc., 140 F.3d 898 (11th Cir. 1998) (injury must be direct for standing; derivative injury insufficient)
- Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 465 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2006) (proximate cause and standing in RICO; direct injury requirement)
- Rand v. Anaconda-Ericsson, Inc., 794 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1986) (plaintiffs must show injury distinct from corporation; otherwise no standing)
- Grafman v. Century Broad. Corp., 727 F. Supp. 432 (N.D. Ill. 1989) (injury to voting shares can be separate from corporation; demonstrates distinct harm)
- Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (Supreme Court 1992) (limiting rico standing to direct injuries; proximate cause considerations)