Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Non‑Argument Calendar; Not for Publication)

Date: October 1, 2025

Panel: Chief Judge William Pryor; Circuit Judges Branch and Anderson (per curiam)

Appeal Nos.: 24-14206; 24-14208

Lower Court: S.D. Fla., No. 9:24-cv-80357-DMM

Executive Summary of Key Holdings

• Florida malicious prosecution requires a “bona fide termination” of the prior proceeding in the plaintiff’s favor. A voluntary dismissal qualifies only if the circumstances demonstrate the prior suit’s lack of merit. Here, the voluntary dismissal did not suffice given state-court rulings adverse to the malicious-prosecution plaintiffs.
• On a Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings, a federal court may consider state-court records under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine where they are central to the claim and their authenticity is not disputed.
• Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate when a claim has no reasonable chance of success. Suing an entity for malicious prosecution that indisputably did not commence—and for which no facts suggest it continued— the prior suit can warrant sanctions and fee awards.
• Sanctions affirmed: $25,000 plus $17,000 in attorney’s fees (the latter agreed by the sanctioned party). Surgical Care Affiliates’ motion for additional appellate sanctions was denied.

Introduction

This consolidated, unpublished Eleventh Circuit opinion arises from a failed attempt by attorney Stephen Lampf and his law firm to recast prior state-court professional negligence litigation brought by Gladiolus Surgery Center, LLC, into a federal malicious prosecution action against Gladiolus and related individuals, and against Surgical Care Affiliates, Inc. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for Gladiolus, Husni Charara, and Ira Zucker, and dismissed the claims against Surgical Care, imposing Rule 11 sanctions and attorney’s fees against attorney Alan R. Zibelman and his firm—the counsel who advanced the federal action.

The core issues on appeal were twofold: (1) whether the prior state action terminated in a manner amounting to a “bona fide termination” in favor of Lampf and his firm, as required under Florida law for malicious prosecution; and (2) whether Rule 11 sanctions and fees were properly imposed for bringing a malicious prosecution claim against Surgical Care when the pleadings established that Surgical Care neither initiated nor continued the state suit.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed across the board, leaving intact both the merits disposition and the sanctions award, while declining Surgical Care’s request for added appellate sanctions.

Summary of the Opinion

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment on the pleadings for Gladiolus, Charara, and Zucker, concluding that the prior state lawsuit did not end in a bona fide termination favorable to Lampf and his firm. The court emphasized that although a voluntary dismissal can sometimes qualify, it depends on the underlying reasons and circumstances. Here, the state court had granted summary judgment against Lampf’s counterclaim, finding no agreement authorizing Lampf to represent Gladiolus in earlier federal litigation—an adverse merits determination that undermined any contention that Gladiolus’s suit lacked merit. Thus, the voluntary dismissal of Gladiolus’s claims did not amount to a bona fide termination for malicious prosecution purposes.

Separately, the court upheld the Rule 11 sanctions and fee award in favor of Surgical Care. The operative complaint itself alleged that Surgical Care only acquired an interest in Gladiolus more than a year after the state suit began, defeating any theory that Surgical Care “commenced” that action. And plaintiffs offered no facts to plausibly allege Surgical Care “continued” the state suit. Given the absence of a reasonable chance of success, sanctions—$25,000 plus $17,000 in agreed attorney’s fees—were within the district court’s discretion. The panel also denied Surgical Care’s motion for additional sanctions on appeal.

Factual and Procedural Background

• 2010: Attorney Stephen Lampf and his firm file a federal suit against United Healthcare entities, purportedly on behalf of Gladiolus Surgery Center to collect receivables. United Healthcare counterclaims against Gladiolus and others.
• 2013: Lampf first contacts Gladiolus, discloses representation, flags a potential conflict, and seeks a waiver.
• 2015: Gladiolus sues Lampf and his firm in Florida state court for professional negligence, alleging they filed the 2010 federal action without Gladiolus’s knowledge or consent. Gladiolus retains new counsel and settles with United Healthcare; the federal suit is dismissed.
• State-court developments: Lampf and his firm counterclaim, alleging Gladiolus (through Charara and Zucker) authorized their representation and that Surgical Care later acquired an interest (April 2016). The state court grants summary judgment against Lampf’s counterclaim, finding no agreement existed with Gladiolus and no knowing acceptance of benefits. Gladiolus voluntarily dismisses its complaint without prejudice. Final judgment enters for Gladiolus; a state appellate court affirms.
• Federal action: Lampf and his firm, represented by attorney Alan R. Zibelman, file a diversity malicious prosecution action against Gladiolus, Charara, Zucker, and Surgical Care. Gladiolus, Charara, and Zucker move for judgment on the pleadings; Surgical Care moves to dismiss and seeks Rule 11 sanctions.
• District court: Judgment on the pleadings is granted for Gladiolus, Charara, and Zucker on the ground that Lampf and his firm cannot show a bona fide termination in their favor. Surgical Care’s motion is granted; the court imposes $25,000 in sanctions and awards $17,000 in attorney’s fees (an agreed amount) under Rule 11.
• Appeal: Lampf and his firm appeal the merits judgment; Zibelman and his firm appeal the sanctions order. Surgical Care seeks additional appellate sanctions. The Eleventh Circuit affirms the district court and denies appellate sanctions.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Alamo Rent‑A‑Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1994): The Florida Supreme Court’s canonical articulation of the elements of malicious prosecution in the civil context: (1) commencement or continuation of an original civil proceeding; (2) its legal causation by the present defendant; (3) bona fide termination in favor of the present plaintiff; (4) absence of probable cause; (5) presence of malice; and (6) damages. This framework sets the threshold elements Lampf and his firm were required to plead and prove.
• Doss v. Bank of Am., N.A., 857 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003): Clarifies that a “bona fide termination” means not just a favorable end but one that permits a court to “conclude with confidence” that the prior suit lacked merit. Doss elevates the significance of why and how the prior case ended, beyond the mere fact of dismissal.
• Cohen v. Corwin, 980 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008): Explains that a voluntary dismissal can, but does not automatically, constitute a bona fide termination; the determination depends on the reasons and surrounding circumstances. Cohen supplies the nuanced rule the panel applies to Gladiolus’s voluntary dismissal.
• Johnson v. City of Atlanta, 107 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2024): Endorses the incorporation‑by‑reference doctrine at the pleadings stage: courts may consider documents not attached to the complaint if they are central to the claims and their authenticity is undisputed. The panel relies on Johnson to approve the district court’s consideration of state-court records in resolving the Rule 12(c) motion.
• Samara v. Taylor, 38 F.4th 141 (11th Cir. 2022): Sets the de novo standard for reviewing judgment on the pleadings and the circumstances under which such judgment is appropriate (no material facts in dispute and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law).
• Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 750 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2014): Provides the abuse‑of‑discretion standard governing Rule 11 sanctions and emphasizes deference absent an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous fact-finding.
• Silva v. Pro Transp., Inc., 898 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2018): Confirms that Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate where a legal theory has no reasonable chance of success—an objective test applied here to the claim against Surgical Care.
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and (c)(2): Requires attorneys to certify that filings are warranted by existing law or nonfrivolous arguments for change and authorizes an award of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, to the prevailing party on a sanctions motion.

Legal Reasoning

1) No “Bona Fide Termination” of the State Case in Favor of Lampf and His Firm

Under Florida law, the termination element in malicious prosecution is stringent: the manner of termination must signify the prior suit’s lack of merit, not just its conclusion. The Eleventh Circuit underscored two decisive features:

• Adverse state-court merits ruling against Lampf’s counterclaim: The state trial court granted summary judgment on Lampf’s counterclaim, finding no agreement by Gladiolus to retain Lampf or accept his representation’s benefits. That finding directly undercut the federal complaint’s premise that Gladiolus authorized Lampf to sue United Healthcare on its behalf. This adverse ruling is probative of the prior suit’s merit and weighs against characterizing the overall termination as “bona fide” in Lampf’s favor.
• Voluntary dismissal’s context matters: Although Gladiolus voluntarily dismissed its state complaint without prejudice, Florida law (Cohen) requires courts to probe the reasons and circumstances. The presence of adverse rulings against Lampf on issues core to his defense/counterclaim supports the conclusion that the voluntary dismissal does not demonstrate Gladiolus’s lawsuit lacked merit. Consequently, Lampf failed to establish the essential “bona fide termination” element.

Procedurally, the panel approved the district court’s reliance on state-court records at the pleadings stage, citing Johnson (2024). Those records were central to the malicious prosecution claim (because the nature of the state suit’s termination is an element) and their authenticity was undisputed. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true but supplemented by these central, undisputed materials, the district court correctly entered judgment on the pleadings: with bona fide termination absent, the claim could not proceed.

2) Rule 11 Sanctions for Baseless Malicious Prosecution Claim Against Surgical Care

The court affirmed the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions and a fee award in favor of Surgical Care (the only appellee seeking such relief in the district court), focusing on the “commenced or continued” element of malicious prosecution under Florida law:

• No plausible allegation of “commencement”: The operative complaint alleged that Surgical Care acquired an interest in Gladiolus in April 2016—more than a year after Gladiolus filed the 2015 state action. On its face, therefore, Surgical Care could not have “commenced” the prior suit. This temporal fact was plaintiff’s own pleading.
• No factual basis for “continuation”: Plaintiffs provided no facts suggesting that Surgical Care took steps to maintain, direct, or otherwise continue the state litigation after acquiring its interest. Absent such allegations, the claim had “no reasonable chance of success” under Silva’s objective standard.

Given these pleading defects and the lack of a nonfrivolous legal argument to extend or modify existing law, the district court acted within its discretion to sanction. The amounts were supported: record evidence showed Surgical Care incurred over $25,000 prosecuting the Rule 11 motion, and the $17,000 fee award for the motion was an agreed figure (and below the total incurred). The panel found no erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual finding, and it declined to add appellate sanctions.

Impact and Implications

Malicious Prosecution in Florida: Heightened Scrutiny of “Bona Fide Termination”

• Voluntary dismissal is not a shortcut: Plaintiffs contemplating a malicious prosecution suit cannot rely on voluntary dismissal alone. Courts will examine the context—including adverse interlocutory rulings—to determine if the termination reflects lack of merit in the original action.
• Early adverse rulings can be dispositive: Where the prior case yielded rulings that undermine the would-be malicious prosecution plaintiff’s narrative (e.g., rejecting authority-to-represent), those rulings may preclude any finding that the earlier suit lacked merit, defeating the tort at the pleadings stage.
• Pleadings-stage disposition is realistic: By approving the consideration of central, undisputed state-court records under Johnson’s incorporation-by-reference doctrine, the Eleventh Circuit signals that malicious prosecution claims can be resolved early when the record of the prior case negates a core element.

Sanctions Risk: Naming Non‑Initiators or Post‑Hoc Participants

• Objective reasonableness governs: Rule 11 sanctions turn on whether a claim has a reasonable chance of success. Suing an entity that could not have commenced the prior action—as shown on the face of the complaint—and offering no facts of “continuation” invites sanctions.
• Acquirers and successors: Entities that acquire interests after a suit has already been filed are not automatically malicious prosecution targets. Absent factual allegations of active steps to maintain or direct the litigation after acquisition, claims against such entities are vulnerable and sanctionable.
• Fee exposure beyond sanctions: Rule 11(c)(2) permits fee shifting for prosecuting the sanctions motion. Here, the sanctioned party faced both a monetary sanction and a separate fee award, underscoring the financial exposure when Rule 11 is triggered.

Procedural Economy and Litigation Strategy

• Use of central public records: Litigants should expect courts to consider undisputed, central state-court records when those records are outcome-determinative on an element, even at Rule 12(c).
• Satellite litigation caution: Transforming prior professional negligence disputes into malicious prosecution actions is risky unless the prior matter concluded in a manner demonstrably inconsistent with its merit (e.g., adjudication on the merits in the defendant’s favor) and other elements (probable cause, malice) are well supported.
• Appellate sanctions are not automatic: The Eleventh Circuit’s denial of additional appellate sanctions reflects a measured approach; prevailing on district court sanctions does not guarantee more on appeal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Malicious Prosecution (Civil): A tort allowing a defendant from an earlier lawsuit to recover damages if the earlier suit was initiated or maintained without probable cause and with malice, and ended in a manner that shows it lacked merit.
• Bona Fide Termination: More than a win; the way the prior case ended must indicate the suit’s lack of merit. Examples that often fail this test include dismissals based on settlement, procedural grounds, or strategic withdrawals that do not speak to the claim’s validity. A voluntary dismissal may or may not qualify depending on context.
• Judgment on the Pleadings (Rule 12(c)): A mechanism to resolve a case based on the pleadings when there are no material factual disputes and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Courts accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true but can consider certain additional materials.
• Incorporation‑by‑Reference Doctrine: Allows a court evaluating a Rule 12 motion to consider documents outside the complaint if they are central to the claim and their authenticity is not in dispute. Here, state-court records were considered to assess the termination element.
• Rule 11 Sanctions: Sanctions can be imposed when claims are not warranted by law or lack evidentiary support, judged by an objective standard. They can include monetary penalties and reimbursement of the opposing party’s reasonable fees for litigating the sanctions motion.
• “Commenced or Continued” (Malicious Prosecution Element): Liability focuses on those who started the prior suit or took active steps to maintain or prolong it. Merely being related to, or later associated with, a party in that litigation is not enough without facts showing active involvement.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision reinforces two practical constraints in Florida malicious prosecution litigation. First, a voluntary dismissal will not satisfy the “bona fide termination” element when the record reveals adverse merits findings against the would‑be malicious prosecution plaintiff—particularly findings undermining the plaintiff’s core factual narrative. Second, Rule 11 remains a robust backstop against naming defendants who neither initiated nor continued the prior litigation, especially where the complaint’s own chronology precludes “commencement” and no facts are pleaded to show “continuation.”

By approving the use of central, undisputed state-court records at the pleadings stage, the court encourages early, efficient resolution of malicious prosecution claims that are infirm as a matter of law. At the same time, the denial of additional appellate sanctions signals restraint in sanctioning beyond what the district court already awarded. The net effect is a clear message: plaintiffs must carefully evaluate the manner and context of prior terminations before filing malicious prosecution suits, and counsel must ensure that every named defendant plausibly fits the “commenced or continued” requirement—or risk significant sanctions.