Case: 12-11400 Date Filed: 02/13/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-11400
_____________
D. C. Docket No. 6:11-cv-00742-ACC-GJK
MCO AIRPORT CONCESSIONS, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company,
ORLANDO AIRSIDE INVESTMENTS, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company,
SUPERIOR HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company,
TYRONE W. NABBIE,
an individual,
BASSEL MAALI,
an individual,
CHAD MAALI,
an individual,
JIHAD MAALI,
an individual,
MANAR MAALI,
an individual,
SAAD MAALI,
an individual,
RANDA MAALI-ITANI,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
versus
GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION AUTHORITY,
an agency of the City of Orlando,
Case: 12-11400 Date Filed: 02/13/2013 Page: 2 of 4
CITY OF ORLANDO,
STEVE GARDNER,
an individual,
CHRIS SCHMIDT,
an individual,
ROBERT L. GILBERT,
an individual,
Defendants – Appellees.
______________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
______________
(February 13, 2013)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARTIN and ALARCÓN, * Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case concerns a failed bid for a concessions contract in Airside 3 of the
Orlando International Airport. Appellants claim the Greater Orlando Aviation
Authority, the City of Orlando, the Executive Director of the Authority, Steve
Gardner, and two Deputy Executive Directors of the Authority, Chris Schmidt and
Robert L. Gilbert (collectively “Appellees”), conducted a rigged bid process when
awarding the concessions contract to Areas/Hojeij-JV with the intent to
discriminate against Appellants on account of their race, color, national origin, and
religion. The district court dismissed their ten-count first amended complaint
*
Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
2
Case: 12-11400 Date Filed: 02/13/2013 Page: 3 of 4
because Appellants lacked standing to sue Appellees directly. It also denied
Appellants’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and to add an
additional party because granting the motion would be futile as Appellants failed to
plausibly state any claims for relief.1
The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether the district court erred in
dismissing Appellants’ first amended complaint because Appellants did not have
standing to sue Appellees directly; and (2) whether the district court erred in
denying Appellants’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint and add an
additional party because Appellants failed to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted.
“We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6).” Redland Co., Inc. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 568 F.3d 1232, 1234
(11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). “[T]he appellate court must accept the factual
allegations of the complaint as true and may affirm . . . ‘only if it is clear that no
relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with
the allegations.’” Mesocap Ind. Ltd. v. Torm Lines, 194 F.3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir.
1999) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S. Ct. 2229, 2232
(1984)).
1
The district court also found all Appellants, except MCO Airport Concessions, LLC, lacked
standing to bring a derivative suit under the proposed second amended complaint.
3
Case: 12-11400 Date Filed: 02/13/2013 Page: 4 of 4
“[T]his court reviews standing de novo.” Eng’g Contractors Ass’n of S.
Fla., Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 122 F.3d 895, 903 (11th Cir. 1997).
The court generally reviews the denial of a motion to amend for abuse of
discretion, however, “when the district court denies the plaintiff leave to amend
due to futility, we review the denial de novo because it is concluding that as a
matter of law an amended complaint would necessarily fail.” Fla. Evergreen
Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 470 F.3d 1036, 1040 (11th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit
of oral argument, we affirm the granting of Appellees’ motion to dismiss and the
denial of Appellants’ motion for leave to amend based on the district court’s well-
reasoned order filed on February 14, 2012.
AFFIRMED.
4