Case: 16-17008 Date Filed: 03/19/2018 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17008
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-02697-SCJ
JEMAL AHMED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ELIAS KIFLE,
ETHIOPIAN REVIEW, INC.,
Defendants - Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 19, 2018)
Case: 16-17008 Date Filed: 03/19/2018 Page: 2 of 6
Before WILSON, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges and GOLDBERG, * Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Defendants/Appellants Ethiopian Review, Inc. (“ER”) and Elias Kifle
(“Kifle”) appeal the district court’s order reinstating a default judgment against ER
and dismissing Kifle from the case. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of the publication by Kifle and ER of allegedly false and
defamatory statements that Appellee Jemal Ahmed (“Ahmed”), a private business
man, runs a vast human trafficking operation. According to a March 2012 post on
ER’s website, this illegal scheme allegedly involves trafficking of underage girls to
the Middle East where they are reportedly held against their will and subjected to
horrific abuses. Immediately after learning of the publication, Ahmed advised
Kifle that the statements were untrue and demanded that they be removed from the
website. Kifle not only refused to do so, but further dared Ahmed to sue him and,
thereafter, republished the article. Given the very serious nature of the charges and
Kifle’s refusal to remove the defamatory material, Ahmed filed a defamation suit
against both Kifle and ER.
*
Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge for the United States Court of International
Trade, sitting by designation.
2
Case: 16-17008 Date Filed: 03/19/2018 Page: 3 of 6
After two years of court proceedings—which included ER’s failure to
appear and significant misconduct by Kifle—the case was litigated to a final
judgment in the district court. After a default by Kifle and ER and a subsequent
bench trial for damages, the district court entered an award for Ahmed of
$428,910.00 for compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees,
along with injunctive relief.
Approximately five months after the judgment had been entered, Kifle and
ER moved to dismiss the case for lack of complete diversity between the parties.
The district court granted that motion and vacated its previous judgment in
Ahmed’s favor. Ahmed appealed that order to our court and moved us to sever
Kifle to preserve diversity jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, to remand to the
district court to decide the still-pending motion to sever. We granted that motion
and remanded the case to the district court. On remand, the district court granted
Ahmed’s motion and severed Kifle from the judgment, thus preserving diversity
jurisdiction and reinstating the judgment as to ER. Kifle and ER then perfected
this appeal.
II. ISSUE
Whether the district court erred in dismissing Kifle from the case to create
subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis that Kifle was neither a required party nor
3
Case: 16-17008 Date Filed: 03/19/2018 Page: 4 of 6
an indispensable party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and thereby improperly
reinstated the default judgment against ER.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Both Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 determinations are reviewed
for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Rigel Ships Agencies, Inc.,
432
F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005); Laker Airways, Inc. v. British Airways, PLC,
182 F.3d 843, 847 (11th Cir. 1999); Mann v. City of Albany,
883 F.2d 999, 1003
(11th Cir. 1989); Fritz v. Am. Home Shield Corp.,
751 F.2d 1152, 1154 (11th Cir.
1985).
IV. DISCUSSION
First, we conclude that the district court correctly noted that by defaulting
both ER and Kifle are deemed to have admitted the well-pled allegations in the
complaint. See Giovanno v. Fabec,
804 F.3d 1361, 1366 (11th Cir. 2015). This
court has also recognized that a default judgment is a legitimate sanction for a
party’s repeated refusal to cooperate with court proceedings and to obey court
orders, as was the case here. See African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc. v.
Ward,
185 F.3d 1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 1999).
Contrary to Kifle and ER’s claims, we conclude that the district court
properly found that ER was co-responsible with Kifle for the posting of the
4
Case: 16-17008 Date Filed: 03/19/2018 Page: 5 of 6
defamatory content in question. That finding was based on evidence submitted by
Ahmed from the website itself, which solicited donations to ER to be used in
support of the website. Kifle’s belated self-serving affidavit claiming sole
responsibility for the website cannot rebut the admission. Moreover, the affidavit
cannot evade the consequences of ER’s failure to appear and the default judgment
entered against it.
This appeal really turns on Kifle and ER’s challenge of the district court’s
finding that Kifle is not a required party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). Rule 19
presents “a two-part test for determining whether an action should proceed in a
nonparty’s absence.” City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc.,
196 F.3d 1300, 1305
(11th Cir. 1999). This court has held that the relevant inquiry, in the first step, “is
whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or
whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an
interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.”
Id. (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)–(2)). Because defendant ER was the corporate vehicle
through which the website was funded and operated, we conclude that the district
court correctly found that Kifle was not a required or indispensable party and thus
could be severed under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed,
complete relief in the form of money damages can be afforded to Ahmed from ER,
5
Case: 16-17008 Date Filed: 03/19/2018 Page: 6 of 6
which was found jointly and severely liable for defamation in the district court.
We also conclude that there has been no showing of prejudice to either Kifle or ER
resulting from Kifle’s severance.
In Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain,
490 U.S. 826,
109 S. Ct. 2218
(1989), the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the court of appeals’
dismissal of a non-diverse party, noting that “given that all of the [defendants] are
jointly and severally liable, it cannot be argued that [one defendant] was
indispensable to the suit.”
Id. at 838, 109 S. Ct. at 2226.
Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, we affirm the district court’s order
dismissing Kifle from this case and in its reinstatement of the judgment against
ER.
AFFIRMED.
6
