USCA11 Case: 23-10308 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-10308 ____________________ KENNETH CAREY, STEVE ANYADIKE, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants, versus JONATHAN KIRK, Individually, a.k.a. DaBaby,

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee,

KHALIK CALDWELL, a.k.a. Stunna 4 Vegas, et al.,

Defendants, USCA11 Case: 23-10308 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 2 of 5

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-20408-JEM ____________________ Before WILSON, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs-Appellants Kenneth Carey and Steve Anyadike ap- peal the district court’s 1 summary judgment rulings and final judg- ment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Jonathan Kirk, Billion Dol- lar Baby Entertainment, LLC (BDBE), Universal Music Group, Inc.

All discovery and related motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Jacquel- ine Becerra. These lower court decisions are collectively referred to as the district court.

USCA11 Case: 23-10308 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 3 of 5

23-10308 Opinion of the Court 3 (UMGI), and Interscope Records. Plaintiffs timely filed a notice of appeal and raised the following issues: I. Whether the district court erred in granting UMGI’s and Interscope Records’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and in- sufficient service of process.

II. Whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling on Plaintiffs’ discovery-related mo- tions and denying Plaintiffs’ requests to supple- ment the record with new evidence after the close of discovery and summary judgment briefing.

III. Whether the district court erred in its partial granting of Kirk’s and BDBE’s motion for sum- mary judgment.

IV. Whether the district court erred in its eviden- tiary rulings concerning the admissibility of video evidence, an arrest report, and arrest warrant.

After thorough review and consideration of the briefs and record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error.

Beginning with the first issue, we find that the district court properly dismissed both UMGI and Interscope Records. The dis- trict court found that it lacked specific jurisdiction over UMGI be- cause Plaintiffs failed to make sufficient allegations according to Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a)(1). See Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3d USCA11 Case: 23-10308 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 4 of 5

Nor do we find reversible error in reviewing the district court’s discovery-related rulings. 2 District courts retain “broad dis- cretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including dis- covery and scheduling.” Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001). The district court provided nu- merous reasons in support of its rulings, including that Plaintiffs failed to comply with local rules and abide by discovery deadlines and rules. Considering the record, we find the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion.

As to Kirk’s and BDBE’s motions for summary judgment, a de novo review supports affirming the district court. See Seamon v. Remington Arms Co., 813 F.3d 983, 987 (11th Cir. 2016). Plaintiffs took a kitchen sink approach, throwing every possible allegation at Kirk and BDBE, and cited little case law in doing so. We thus affirm the district court here as well.

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. See Wright v. CSX Transp., Inc., 375 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). A review of the record shows

2 Within this issue, Plaintiffs challenge the denial of deposition requests. We find the district court’s courts rulings appropriate here as the identified persons were not parties to this suit. Additionally, Plaintiffs did not establish, nor does the record support finding, that the desired testimony would have proven rel- evant to this dispute.

USCA11 Case: 23-10308 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 5 of 5

23-10308 Opinion of the Court 5 that the district court provided a fair and proper reason in making each of its rulings.

Accordingly, we affirm the well-reasoned decisions of the district court.

AFFIRMED.3