Case: 15-15303 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15303
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-00240-WKW-SRW
LAND VENTURES FOR 2, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL AARON FRITZ, SR.,
FRITZ, HUGHES & HILL, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(August 29, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-15303 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Page: 2 of 4
Land Ventures for 2, LLC, appeals the summary judgment against its
complaint that Michael Aaron Fritz Sr., and his law firm, Fritz, Hughes & Hill,
LLC, committed legal malpractice under the Alabama Legal Services Liability
Act, Ala. Code § 6–5–570 et seq. Land Ventures retained Fritz to assist it in
obtaining relief under the Bankruptcy Code, but it sued Fritz after its petition for
bankruptcy was converted involuntarily from a Chapter 11 proceeding to a Chapter
7 proceeding and its assets were liquidated. The district court ruled that Land
Ventures failed to prove that, but for Fritz’s conduct, “the bankruptcy proceeding
would have resolved more favorably.” After careful review, we affirm.
We review de novo a summary judgment and view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co. v.
Thompson, 802 F.3d 1248, 1252 (11th Cir. 2015). Summary judgment is
appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Land Ventures challenges the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the
bankruptcy court, but we do not review its assessment of the action. Land Ventures
does not dispute that its civil action was not a core proceeding but was related to its
bankruptcy case. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). As required under section 157(c)(1),
the district court reviewed de novo the proposed findings and conclusions that
Land Ventures failed to prove that it suffered damages, that there was a causal
2
Case: 15-15303 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Page: 3 of 4
connection between its injury and Fritz’s conduct, and that Fritz breached the
applicable standard of care. See id. And the district court “arriv[ed] at an
independent judgment,” Matter of Ferris, 764 F.2d 1475, 1478 (11th Cir. 1985),
that Land Ventures failed to prove the element of causation. Because the district
court, by entering final judgment, 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), “made the only decision
there is for us to review,” In re Rasbury, 24 F.3d 159, 166 (11th Cir. 1994), we will
not consider the argument of Land Ventures about errors committed by the
bankruptcy court.
Land Ventures argues that a genuine dispute existed about whether Fritz
misrepresented that he was an expert in Chapter 11 bankruptcy practice, but this
issue is not properly before us. “To prevail on a particular theory of liability, a
party must present that argument to the district court.” Fils v. City of Aventura, 647
F.3d 1272, 1284 (11th Cir. 2011). Land Ventures alleged in paragraphs 141 and
150 of its complaint that Fritz failed to perform twelve actions, “each of [which]
. . . constitute[d] a breach of the applicable standard of care for a licensed legal
services provider.” But nowhere in that list is an allegation that Fritz
misrepresented his level of expertise. We will not consider a theory of liability that
Land Ventures failed to raise in the district court.
The district court did not err by entering summary judgment in favor of
Fritz. Expert testimony is required generally to establish that a legal services
3
Case: 15-15303 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Page: 4 of 4
provider has deviated from the applicable standard of care. Tonsmeire v. AmSouth
Bank, 659 So. 2d 601, 605 (Ala. 1995). The district court struck the expert
proffered by Land Ventures, and the company does not challenge that adverse
ruling on appeal. Fritz submitted an affidavit and testimony from an attorney who
practiced in the bankruptcy courts in Alabama that established Fritz did not breach
the standard of care. Without an expert to create a genuine factual dispute about the
adequacy of Fritz’s representation, Fritz was entitled to summary judgment. See
Green v. Ingram, 794 So. 2d 1070, 1072 (Ala. 2001).
We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Fritz.
4