Robert C. Courboin v. Candace Scott
596 F. App'x 729
11th Cir.2014Background
- Pro se plaintiff Robert Courboin sued New Jersey attorneys and appraisers involved in his 2011 New Jersey divorce, alleging overbilling and fee-splitting that depleted about $200,000 of marital assets.
- Defendants include opposing counsel (Scott defendants), plaintiff's former counsel (Jensen defendants), and appraisers (Barson and Smith defendants).
- Courboin asserted federal RICO and Sherman Act claims and filed in the Middle District of Florida after moving to Florida.
- Scott and Smith moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Barson and Jensen did not timely move. The district court dismissed the entire complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and also reached the merits, dismissing with prejudice for failure to state a claim and as frivolous.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo, considered whether RICO’s nationwide service-of-process applies (requiring a colorable RICO claim), and analyzed Florida long-arm jurisdiction for the Sherman Act claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RICO’s nationwide service provision confers personal jurisdiction | RICO allows nationwide service, so Florida court has jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants | Defendants lack sufficient Florida contacts; jurisdiction requires a colorable RICO claim to invoke nationwide service | Court held Courboin failed to plead a colorable RICO claim; cannot rely on RICO nationwide service; no jurisdiction under RICO |
| Whether Courboin stated a colorable RICO claim (predicate acts, enterprise, pattern) | Alleged corruption, overbilling, fee-splitting and coordinated conduct by attorneys and appraisers constituted racketeering | Allegations are vague, noncriminal, and do not identify predicate acts or an enterprise/pattern as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1962 | Court held allegations did not identify predicate acts (e.g., mail/wire fraud) or plausibly show an enterprise or pattern; RICO claim not colorable |
| Whether Florida long-arm statute and due process permit jurisdiction for Sherman Act (and state-law) claims | Courboin relied on his injury in Florida (he moved there) and RICO argument | Defendants did not solicit or do business in Florida; injury is economic only and unilateral moves by plaintiff do not create jurisdiction | Court held Florida long-arm and Due Process requirements not met; no specific or general jurisdiction over defendants |
| Whether district court could dismiss non-moving defendants sua sponte | Courboin argued all defendants are before the court and claims are related | Defendants noted lack of motion but argued similarity to moving defendants and all acts occurred in New Jersey | Court affirmed dismissal as to non-moving defendants: they were similarly situated, claims integrally related, and reversal would be futile; dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1990) (prima facie burden for personal jurisdiction when no evidentiary hearing)
- Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A., 119 F.3d 935 (11th Cir. 1997) (statutory nationwide service confers jurisdiction only if federal claim is colorable)
- Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 465 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2006) (elements of a civil RICO claim and pattern requirement)
- McCaleb v. A.O. Smith Corp., 200 F.3d 747 (11th Cir. 2000) (RICO private right of action and remedies)
- Delong Equip. Co. v. Washington Mills Abrasive Co., 840 F.2d 843 (11th Cir. 1988) (Sherman Act claims require state long-arm analysis for jurisdiction)
- Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 511 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1987) (economic injury alone insufficient for long-arm jurisdiction provision at issue)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (minimum contacts and fair play/justice due-process standard)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) (unilateral activity of forum resident cannot establish defendant contacts)
- Loman Dev. Co. v. Daytona Hotel & Motel Suppliers, Inc., 817 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1987) (sua sponte dismissal of non-moving defendants similar to moving defendants)
- Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) (limitations on sua sponte dismissal and futility exception)