Furquan R. Stafford v. Kedrion S.p.A., et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10807
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
FURQUAN R. STAFFORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KEDRION S.P.A.,
KEDRION BIOPHARMA, INC.,
GRIFOLS INTERNATIONAL S.A.,
GRIFOLS SHARED SERVICES NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
CSL PLASMA, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
OCTAPHARMA AG, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-10807 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10807
Defendants.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00573-VMC
____________________
Before W ILLIAM P RYOR , Chief Judge, and W ILSON and L UCK , Cir-
cuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Furquan Stafford appeals pro se the dismissal of his amended
complaint against Kedrion S.p.A.; Kedrion Biopharma, Inc.; Grifols
International, S.A.; Grifols Shared Services North America, Inc.;
CSL Plasma, Inc.; CSL Behring; and CSL Limited. Stafford, an Af-
rican-American entrepreneur in blood plasma collection, com-
plained that, since at least 1998, the defendant plasma distributors
had refused to contract with him because of his race. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981. The district court dismissed with prejudice Stafford’s com-
plaint against three domestic distributors—Kedrion Biopharma,
Inc., Grifols Shared Services North America, Inc., and CSL Plasma,
Inc.—as barred by res judicata. It dismissed without prejudice the
complaint against the remaining distributors, many of which were
international corporations, for lack of personal jurisdiction. We af-
firm.
USCA11 Case: 23-10807 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-10807 Opinion of the Court 3
We review a dismissal on res judicata grounds de novo.
Kizzire v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., 441 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.
2006). Although we ordinarily review the denial of a motion for
leave to amend for abuse of discretion, “where the lower court de-
nies leave to amend based on futility of the proposed amendment,
we review de novo because it is a conclusion that as a matter of law
an amended complaint would necessarily fail.” SE Prop. Holdings,
LLC v. Gaddy, 977 F.3d 1051, 1056 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks
omitted, alteration adopted).
The district court did not err by dismissing Stafford’s com-
plaint against the domestic distributors. Res judicata bars a com-
plaint when a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final
judgment on the merits on another complaint that involves the
same parties or those in privity with them and that involves the
same cause of action. Shurick v. Boeing Co., 623 F.3d 1114, 1116–17
(11th Cir. 2010). Stafford has filed several lawsuits alleging that the
same domestic plasma distributors illegally refused to do business
with him because of his race under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. His most recent lawsuit, filed in 2020, was dismissed
with prejudice for failing to state a claim and resulted in a final judg-
ment on the merits against the same parties—Kedrion Biopharam,
Inc.; Grifols Shared Services North America, Inc.; and CSL Plasma,
Inc. See Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 704 F.3d 882, 892–93 (11th Cir.
2013). Although that prior suit did not invoke section 1981, Stafford
does not dispute the ruling that his complaint arose from the same
nucleus of operative fact. See Manning v. City of Auburn, 953 F.2d
1355, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 1992).
USCA11 Case: 23-10807 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10807
Instead, Stafford’s only argument about the res judicata rul-
ing is that a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction does not con-
stitute a decision on the merits. But the district court did not rely
on a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction in determining that
the instant lawsuit against the domestic distributors was barred by
res judicata. And Stafford does not argue that the district court
could exercise personal jurisdiction over the international plasma
distributors. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678,
681 (11th Cir. 2014). The district court correctly ruled that res judi-
cata barred his complaint against the three domestic plasma distrib-
utors.
The district court did not err by denying Stafford leave to
amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The district court ruled that of the
three corporations that he sought to add with his second amended
complaint, one of them, CSL Limited, already was a named party
over which the district court ruled it lacked personal jurisdiction.
As for the other two corporations—Grifols S.A. and Biomat USA,
Inc.—the district court ruled, and Stafford does not dispute, that
these corporations are in privity with domestic distributor Grifols
Shared Services North America, Inc. See id. Because res judicata
would bar the second amended complaint, and because this was
Stafford’s fifth unsuccessful lawsuit based on the same allegations,
further amendment would have been futile and caused undue de-
lay. See Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Stafford’s amended complaint.
USCA11 Case: 23-10807 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --