Paul F. Jannuzzo v. Glock, Inc.
16-14534
| 11th Cir. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Jannuzzo, former general counsel for Glock, kept a Glock pistol loaned to him in 1999; Glock did not request its return and the pistol remained registered to Glock.
- In 2009 Georgia charged Jannuzzo with theft by conversion and conspiracy to violate Georgia RICO, using the pistol conversion as a predicate act; a jury convicted him but the Georgia Court of Appeals later reversed the convictions on statute-of-limitations grounds.
- Jannuzzo sued Glock, Consultinvest, and individual attorneys alleging malicious prosecution (42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Georgia law), Georgia RICO violations, and related conspiracy claims; the district court dismissed his First Amended Complaint.
- He moved under Rule 59(e) for reconsideration and sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint attaching new evidence; the district court denied the motion, finding the amendments futile and the new evidence not previously unavailable.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews dismissals de novo, reviews Rule 59(e) and denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion, and reviews futility of amendment de novo as a legal question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution (§ 1983 and Georgia law) | Defendants manipulated evidence/testimony and withheld exculpatory evidence, producing a fraudulent conviction that permits a malicious prosecution claim despite the original guilty verdict | The guilty verdict and denial of directed verdicts establish probable cause; plaintiff must plausibly allege fraud or perjury that corrupted the trial to overcome conclusive probable cause | Dismissal affirmed — plaintiff failed to plausibly show fraud/perjury or corrupted trial; probable cause existed and verdict is conclusive absent specific allegations of trial corruption |
| Georgia RICO (O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3) | Defendants committed predicate offenses (false statements, suppression of evidence, influencing witnesses, perjury) forming a pattern of racketeering | Complaints are vague; RICO civil claims must plead predicate acts with Rule 9(b) particularity (who/what/when/where/how) | Dismissal affirmed — pleadings lack Rule 9(b) specificity and fail to allege two predicate offenses plausibly |
| New predicate offense in proposed amendment (O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20) | Proposed Second Amended Complaint newly alleges willful false statements to obtain an indictment | New allegations are vague and raised via a Rule 59(e) motion; still fail to satisfy Rule 9(b) | Denied — new predicate added is inadequately pleaded and amendment would be futile |
| Rule 59(e) motion based on newly discovered evidence | Jannuzzo obtained evidence of company directive to refuse guns after his departure and asserts it was newly discovered and material | Evidence was available or not shown to be previously unavailable; amendment would be futile | Denied — district court did not abuse discretion; plaintiff failed to show evidence was unavailable during initial briefing and amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Glover v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 459 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Wood v. Kesler, 323 F.3d 872 (11th Cir. 2003) (elements of § 1983 malicious prosecution claim)
- Ambrosia Coal & Const. Co. v. Pages Morales, 482 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2007) (Rule 9(b) heightened pleading for civil RICO)
- Chang v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 845 F.3d 1087 (11th Cir. 2017) (futility standard for leave to amend)
- Jannuzzo v. State, 746 S.E.2d 238 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013) (appellate reversal of conviction on statute-of-limitations grounds)
- Georgia Loan & Trust Co. v. Johnston, 43 S.E. 27 (Ga. 1902) (fraud exception to conclusiveness of judgment)
- Akins v. Warren, 375 S.E.2d 605 (Ga. 1988) (denial of directed verdict establishes probable cause absent fraud)