USCA11 Case: 22-11302 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit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: 2 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 JORDAN, LAGOA, and HULL, 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: 3 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.