Introduction

In a consolidated, unpublished, per curiam decision, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed two district court rulings arising from a contentious series of litigations linked to a healthcare receivables dispute. The first affirmed a judgment on the pleadings against attorney Stephen Lampf and his firm on their Florida malicious prosecution claims against Gladiolus Surgery Center, LLC and two of its principals, Husni Charara and Ira Zucker. The second affirmed Rule 11 sanctions and an attorney’s fee award against attorney Alan Zibelman and his firm in favor of Surgical Care Affiliates, Inc. (SCA) for asserting a malicious prosecution claim that had no reasonable chance of success.

The opinion reinforces three practical points of law:

• Under Florida law, a voluntary dismissal of an underlying suit does not automatically constitute a “bona fide termination” in favor of a would-be malicious prosecution plaintiff; courts look to the reasons and surrounding circumstances to determine whether the termination indicates the underlying suit lacked merit.
• District courts may consider state-court records at the judgment-on-the-pleadings stage under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine where those records are central to the claim and their authenticity is not disputed.
• Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate where the pleaded facts themselves foreclose an essential element of the claim—here, alleging malicious prosecution against an entity that did not acquire any interest until after the original action was filed and with no facts showing the entity “commenced or continued” that action.

Parties:

• Plaintiffs/Appellants: Stephen Lampf and his firm, Lampf, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow, P.A. (malicious prosecution claims); Alan R. Zibelman and Zibelman Legal Associates, P.C. (sanctions appeal).
• Defendants/Appellees: Gladiolus Surgery Center, LLC; Husni A. Charara; Ira A. Zucker; Surgical Care Affiliates, Inc.

Procedural posture: Non-argument calendar; appeals from the Southern District of Florida (No. 9:24-cv-80357-DMM). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed across the board and denied SCA’s request for additional sanctions on appeal.

Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed (1) judgment on the pleadings for Gladiolus, Charara, and Zucker on Lampf’s Florida malicious prosecution claims and (2) the district court’s Rule 11 sanctions and fee award against Zibelman and his firm in favor of SCA.

On the malicious prosecution claims, the court held that Lampf could not satisfy the “bona fide termination” element. Although the underlying state action brought by Gladiolus had been voluntarily dismissed, the state-court record showed that prior rulings undercut Lampf’s central premise (that Gladiolus authorized his firm to sue on its behalf), and the litigation terminated with a final judgment for Gladiolus that was affirmed on appeal. The district court properly considered the state-court records under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine because they were central to the malicious prosecution claim and their authenticity was not disputed. Because the termination of the state action did not demonstrate its lack of merit, the “bona fide termination” element failed as a matter of law.

On sanctions, the court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a $25,000 Rule 11 sanction and awarding $17,000 in attorney’s fees to SCA. The operative complaint alleged that SCA acquired an interest in Gladiolus in April 2016—more than a year after the original state action had been filed—yet asserted malicious prosecution against SCA without facts showing SCA initiated, maintained, or otherwise participated in the state suit. The claim against SCA therefore had no reasonable chance of success. The amounts awarded were supported by the record and, in the case of fees, agreed by the sanctioned party.

Case Background

The dispute traces to a 2010 federal suit filed by Lampf against United Healthcare Services, Inc. and United Healthcare Insurance Company purportedly on behalf of Gladiolus to collect receivables. United Healthcare counterclaimed against Gladiolus and others. According to Gladiolus, it neither knew of nor consented to Lampf’s representation and learned of it only in 2013.

In 2015, Gladiolus sued Lampf and his firm in Florida state court for professional negligence, alleging the federal suit had been filed without its authorization. Lampf counterclaimed, asserting that Gladiolus, through individuals including Charara and Zucker, had authorized the suit; he further alleged that SCA acquired an interest in Gladiolus in April 2016—after the state action began. The state court granted summary judgment against Lampf’s counterclaim, ruling that “no one on behalf of Gladiolus” had contracted with Lampf’s firm and there was no evidence Gladiolus knowingly accepted the firm’s services. Gladiolus then voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice. The state court entered final judgment for Gladiolus, and the state appellate court affirmed.

Lampf and his firm, represented by Zibelman, later sued in federal court, asserting Florida malicious prosecution claims against Gladiolus, Charara, Zucker, and SCA. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to Gladiolus, Charara, and Zucker because Lampf could not show a bona fide termination of the state case in his favor. It dismissed the claim against SCA and imposed Rule 11 sanctions and fees because the claim had no reasonable chance of success given SCA’s post-filing acquisition and the absence of facts showing SCA commenced or continued the state action.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Standards of Review

• Samara v. Taylor, 38 F.4th 141, 149 (11th Cir. 2022): Judgment on the pleadings is reviewed de novo; the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. Judgment is proper when no material facts are in dispute and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This framed the appellate review for the Rule 12(c) ruling.
• Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 750 F.3d 1253, 1259–60 (11th Cir. 2014): Rule 11 sanctions are reviewed for abuse of discretion; affirmance is warranted unless the district court applied an erroneous legal standard or made clearly erroneous factual findings. This anchored the deferential review of the sanction order.

Florida Malicious Prosecution Elements and “Bona Fide Termination”

• Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Fla. 1994): Recites the elements of Florida malicious prosecution, including that the prior proceeding was commenced or continued without probable cause, with malice, and terminated in favor of the present plaintiff, causing damages. This supplied the substantive elements.
• Doss v. Bank of America, N.A., 857 So. 2d 991, 994 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003): A “bona fide termination” must allow the later court to “conclude with confidence” both that the termination favored the prior defendant and that it demonstrated the prior suit lacked merit. This emphasizes that the manner and reasons for termination matter.
• Cohen v. Corwin, 980 So. 2d 1153, 1156 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008): A voluntary dismissal can qualify as a bona fide termination, but whether it does depends on the reasons and circumstances underlying the dismissal. This underscores that a voluntary dismissal is not automatically “favorable” for malicious prosecution purposes.

Procedural Doctrines: Incorporation-by-Reference

• Johnson v. City of Atlanta, 107 F.4th 1292, 1300 (11th Cir. 2024): At the pleadings stage, a court may consider documents not attached to the complaint if they are central to the claims and their authenticity is undisputed. This authorized the district court’s reliance on the state-court record to assess the bona fide termination element.

Rule 11 Sanctions

• Silva v. Pro Transport, Inc., 898 F.3d 1335, 1340 (11th Cir. 2018): Sanctions may be imposed when a claim has no reasonable chance of success and is not warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument to change the law. This grounded the finding that the claim against SCA was sanctionable given the complaint’s own timeline.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), (c)(2): Presenting a pleading certifies that claims are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for change; the court may award to the prevailing party reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred for the sanctions motion.

Collectively, these authorities empowered the district court to dispose of the malicious prosecution claims early and to sanction the assertion of a claim that could not satisfy a necessary element on the pleaded facts.

Legal Reasoning

A. No “Bona Fide Termination” of the State Action in Lampf’s Favor

Florida malicious prosecution requires a prior proceeding to have terminated in a manner that not only favors the prospective plaintiff but also reflects the absence of merit in the prior suit. The Eleventh Circuit held the district court correctly determined, at the pleadings stage, that this element was not met.

The court applied the incorporation-by-reference doctrine to review state-court records central to the malicious prosecution claim. Those records showed:

• The state court granted summary judgment against Lampf’s counterclaim, expressly finding “no one on behalf of Gladiolus” contracted with Lampf’s firm and that there was no evidence of Gladiolus’s knowing acceptance of the firm’s services.
• Gladiolus voluntarily dismissed its own negligence complaint without prejudice thereafter, and the state court entered final judgment for Gladiolus, which was affirmed on appeal.

Against this backdrop, the voluntary dismissal did not constitute a bona fide termination in Lampf’s favor. Under Doss and Cohen, the court must be able to infer from the circumstances that the dismissal indicates lack of merit in the underlying suit. Here, the state court’s adverse determinations on authorization undercut Lampf’s central narrative and are inconsistent with an inference that Gladiolus’s suit lacked merit. Because the bona fide termination element failed as a matter of law, judgment on the pleadings for Gladiolus, Charara, and Zucker was proper without reaching malice, probable cause, or damages.

B. Rule 11 Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees for the Claim Against SCA

Malicious prosecution also requires that the defendant “commenced or continued” the prior proceeding. The operative complaint itself alleged that SCA acquired an interest in Gladiolus in April 2016—more than a year after Gladiolus filed the state action. The district court found (and the Eleventh Circuit agreed) that:

• SCA could not have “commenced” a lawsuit filed before it had any connection to the plaintiff entity; and
• The complaint alleged no facts showing SCA “continued” or otherwise participated in maintaining the state action after joining the scene.

With an essential element foreclosed by the plaintiff’s own timeline and no nonfrivolous argument to extend or modify the law, the claim had no reasonable chance of success, warranting Rule 11 sanctions. The court affirmed the $25,000 sanction, supported by evidence that SCA incurred over $25,000 prosecuting the sanctions motion, and the $17,000 fee award, which Zibelman agreed was reasonable even though SCA’s fees exceeded that amount. The Eleventh Circuit also denied SCA’s request for additional sanctions on appeal.

Impact and Practical Implications

• Voluntary dismissal is not enough. Florida malicious prosecution plaintiffs cannot rely on a bare voluntary dismissal of the underlying case. Courts will examine the record to determine whether the dismissal indicates a lack of merit. Dismissals following adverse interlocutory or summary judgment rulings that undermine the would-be plaintiff’s narrative will rarely qualify.
• Early resolution via incorporation-by-reference. The opinion endorses district courts’ use of state-court records at the pleadings stage in malicious prosecution cases when those records are central and undisputed. This facilitates early disposition of claims that depend on a tendentious characterization of the previous litigation.
• Careful pleading of the “commenced or continued” element as to each defendant. Plaintiffs must allege specific facts showing how each named defendant initiated or maintained the prior proceeding. Naming a later-acquired affiliate or investor without facts showing its participation invites dismissal and potential sanctions.
• Sanctions risk when the complaint contradicts itself. If the complaint’s own timeline defeats a necessary element, continuing to press the claim can support Rule 11 sanctions, including both monetary penalties and fee-shifting for the sanctions motion.
• Limited precedential weight but persuasive guidance. Although unpublished, the decision reflects and applies settled Florida malicious prosecution principles and Eleventh Circuit pleading-stage doctrines, offering persuasive guidance to district courts within the circuit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Malicious prosecution (Florida): A tort allowing damages when someone is subjected to a prior civil or criminal proceeding that was (1) commenced or continued by the defendant, (2) without probable cause, (3) with malice, (4) terminated in the plaintiff’s favor, and (5) caused damage.
• Bona fide termination: Not just “the case ended.” The termination must, in context, signal that the prior suit lacked merit. A voluntary dismissal can qualify, but only if the reasons and circumstances show the suit was baseless.
• Commenced or continued: Liability can extend beyond original filers to those who instigate or maintain a proceeding. But plaintiffs must allege facts showing the defendant’s role—temporal facts (e.g., joining after filing) matter.
• Judgment on the pleadings (Rule 12(c)): A mechanism to decide a case early when, taking the allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences for the nonmovant, there are no material factual disputes and the movant is entitled to law-based judgment.
• Incorporation-by-reference doctrine: Courts can consider documents outside the complaint if they are central to the claims and their authenticity is undisputed—such as prior court records integral to a malicious prosecution claim.
• Rule 11 sanctions: A court may penalize filings that are not warranted by existing law (or a nonfrivolous argument to change it) or lack factual support after reasonable inquiry. Sanctions can include monetary penalties and awarding the opponent’s reasonable expenses in bringing the sanctions motion.
• Standards of review: De novo (fresh) review for judgments on the pleadings; abuse-of-discretion (deferential) review for Rule 11 sanctions.
• Per curiam, non-argument calendar, unpublished: A short, unsigned decision resolved without oral argument and not designated for publication; typically non-precedential but potentially persuasive.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision reinforces core Florida and federal principles that constrain malicious prosecution litigation. A voluntary dismissal will not, by itself, carry the “bona fide termination” burden—particularly where the state-court record reflects adverse findings inconsistent with the underlying suit being meritless. District courts may consult those state-court records at the Rule 12(c) stage to test that element. The opinion further underscores that naming a later-acquiring corporate affiliate in a malicious prosecution claim, without concrete allegations of its role in initiating or maintaining the prior action, is a nonstarter and may warrant Rule 11 sanctions when the complaint’s own timeline defeats the claim.

Practitioners contemplating malicious prosecution claims should carefully review the full procedural history and state-court record of the underlying case, plead the “commenced or continued” element as to each defendant with specificity, and evaluate whether the manner of termination truly signals lack of merit. Failure to do so risks early dismissal and sanctions.