Steven Ludwig v. DB USA Core Corporation

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11302
____________________
STEVEN LUDWIG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DEUTSCHE BANK AG, et al.,
Defendants,
DB USA CORE CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11302 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11302
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cv-00910-MMH-MCR
____________________
Before J ORDAN, L AGOA, and H ULL , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Ludwig appeals the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dis-
missal, with prejudice, of his claim against DB USA Core Corpora-
tion under the Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. § § 448.102,
448.103. Following oral argument and a review of the record, we
affirm.
The district court dismissed Mr. Ludwig’s second amended
complaint on two grounds. First, it ruled that the second amended
complaint contained only “threadbare and conclusory allegations”
as to Mr. Ludwig’s objections to DB USA’s alleged violations. See
D.E. 55 at 18. Second, it ruled that the second amended complaint
failed to plausibly allege causation—that Mr. Ludwig’s termination
was causally linked to his objections. See id. at 22-24.
On appeal, Mr. Ludwig challenges the first basis for dismis-
sal, arguing that the district court improperly applied a heightened
pleading standard. See Appellant’s Br. at 14-17. But he does not
argue in any way that the district court’s second basis for dismis-
sal—the failure to plausibly plead causation—was erroneous.
When a district court bases its dismissal of a complaint on multiple
independent grounds, an appellant needs to show that each ground
USCA11 Case: 22-11302 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-11302 Opinion of the Court 3
is erroneous in order to obtain a reversal. If he fails to challenge
one of those grounds, he has abandoned any challenge to that
ground, and the judgment is due to be affirmed. See Sapuppo v. All-
state Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). That is
the case here, as Mr. Ludwig has not argued that the district court
erred in ruling that he failed to plausibly allege causation. Conse-
quently, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his second
amended complaint.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-11302 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --