Mike Mitchell & Assocs. v. Ronald Reine , 305 F. App'x 542 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-12085 DEC 15, 2008
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 94-01417-CV-FAM
C. THURMON BELL,
individually as assignee of Mike Mitchell
& Associates, Ltd., a South Carolina Corporation,
Interested Party-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
versus
RONALD REINE, individually,
Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
SYLVIA REINE, BRIAN REINE,
OMNI CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
Movants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(December 15, 2008)
Before DUBINA, BLACK and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
C. Thurmon Bell appeals the district court’s March 29, 2007, Final Order of
Dismissal and Order Denying All Pending Motions as Moot. Bell asserts the
district court erred by applying § 95.11(2), Florida Statutes, Florida’s five-year
statute of limitations for “an action on a judgment,” to bar Bell’s effort to hold
Appellees liable, as alter egos, for a debt arising under a 1997 judgment. Bell also
asserts the district court erred by concluding Sylvia Reine was not subject to alter-
ego liability or jurisdiction, and by declining to impose liability on Omni
Construction, LLC (Omni LLC). Ronald Reine cross appeals the adverse rulings
made against him, in the event we disagree with the district court’s ruling as to the
statute of limitations. After reviewing the record, reviewing the parties’ briefs,
and having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s order of
dismissal.1
On January 13, 1997, the district court entered an amended final judgment
on a jury verdict against Omni Construction of Mississippi, Inc. (Omni-Miss).
Omni-Miss ceased its operations and liquidated its assets around 1995, and Bell
has yet to collect on the judgment. On November 5, 2002, Bell filed an emergency
motion requesting the district court to “freeze” monies about to be paid to Omni
1
Because the district court correctly concluded Fla. St. § 95.11(2)(a) barred Bell’s
claims, we do not reach the other arguments raised by Bell, or the issues raised on cross-appeal
by Ronald Reine.
2
LLC. Although Bell’s efforts to collect were eventually manifested in a 2006
motion for imposition of alter-ego liability, November 5, 2002, is the operative
date for statute of limitations purposes.
We review a district court’s determination regarding a statute of limitations
de novo. Atl. Land & Improvement Co. v. United States, 790 F.2d 853, 857 (11th
Cir. 1986). Florida’s statute of limitations provides, in relevant part, “[a]n action
on a judgment or decree of any court [other than for the recovery of real property],
not of record, of this state or any court of the United States, any other state or
territory in the United States, or a foreign country” shall be commenced within
five years. FLA. STAT. § 95.11(2)(a). This statute has been applied to actions to
enforce a judgment in Florida against the alleged alter ego of the judgment debtor.
See Turner Murphy Co. v. Specialty Constructors, Inc., 659 So. 2d 1242, 1243
(Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
Applying § 95.11(2)(a), the statute of limitations ran on January 13, 2002,
five years after the district court entered judgment against Omni-Miss. Bell filed
his motion to enforce the judgment on November 5, 2002. Because Bell can point
to no authority in disagreement with Turner Murphy, his attempt to impose
liability on Appellees is barred by § 95.11(2)(a).
AFFIRMED.
3