Summary

This diversity jurisdiction case arises out of a dispute between two Saudi Arabian companies involved in the business of helping foreign companies gain access to the rich Saudi Arabian market -- Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company ("ARPIC") and Al Rushaid Trading Company ("ARTC") (collectively, "Al Rushaid") -- and Siemens Energy, Inc. ("Siemens"), a large manufacturer of, among other things, steam and gas turbines. Siemens acquired Dresser Rand Group ("DRG"), another company involved in manufacturing gas turbines, that had earlier contracted with ARPIC and ARTC. Siemens then, allegedly, cut both ARPIC and ARTC out of various contracts and deals they say they should have been part of. Al Rushaid sued Siemens in the Middle District of Florida for tortious interference, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed all of the claims without prejudice. On appeal to our Court, Al Rushaid asserts that the district court erred across the board in dismissing each claim.

After thorough review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we remain unconvinced. First, because Siemens owned DRG and thus had supervisory and financial interests in DRG at the critical time the alleged tortious conduct occurred, Siemens was not a stranger to the contracts and business relationships at issue, as is required to sustain a claim for tortious interference under Florida law. What's more, the unfair competition claim is an impermissible "shotgun pleading," and also fails to allege the necessary elements of unfair competition. Finally, the unjust enrichment claim fails to meet minimum pleading standards. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment in all respects.

...