Senior Transeastern Lenders, et al. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors

Share |
by Justia Inc
This bankruptcy appeal involved a transfer of liens by subsidiaries of TOUSA, Inc., to secure the payment of a debt owed only by their parent, TOUSA. This appeal by the Committee of Unsecured Creditors presented two issues: (1) whether the bankruptcy court clearly erred when it found that the Conveying Subsidiaries did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the liens to secure loans used to pay a debt owed only by TOUSA; and (2) whether the Transeastern Lenders were entities "for whose benefit" the Conveying Subsidiaries transferred the liens. The court held that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err when it found that the Conveying Subsidiaries did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the liens and that the bankruptcy court correctly ruled that the Transeastern Lenders were entities "for whose benefit" the liens were transferred. The court reversed the judgment of the district court, affirmed the liability findings of the bankruptcy court, and remanded for further proceedings.

Pope v. Secretary, DOC

Share |
by Justia Inc
Petitioner was convicted on three counts of first degree murder and was sentenced to death in Florida's state courts. On collateral review, the district court granted in part petitioner's federal application for writ of habeas corpus, finding that trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of the trial by failing to present substantial mitigating evidence to the jury, and by failing to object to the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury that petitioner preferred a death sentence over life imprisonment. The district court rejected the remainder of the petition, holding, among other things, that trial counsel was not ineffective during the guilt phase of the trial. The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief as to petitioner's guilt-phase ineffectiveness claims; vacated the district court's grant of habeas relief concerning petitioner's penalty-phase ineffectiveness claims; and remanded for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on those claims.

United States v. Pertuz-Pertuz

Share |
by Justia Inc
Defendant pleaded guilty to drug offenses on the high seas and was sentenced to concurrent imprisonment terms of 120 months, pursuant to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Defendant appealed, contending that the district court erred in imposing the sentence. The court affirmed because the offenses for which defendant was convicted did not appear in the 18 U.S.C. 3553(f) list of specified offenses that triggered safety-valve relief.

Mansfield v. Secretary, DOC

Share |
by Justia Inc
In this capital case, the State of Florida appealed the district court's order granting habeas relief to petitioner on his claim that the admission of a videotape of his custodial interrogation by law enforcement officers, when he never received any Miranda warnings, yielded prejudicial constitutional error. The court reversed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the district court engaged in its own factfinding process, failed to accept as correct some of the unrebutted factual findings of the Florida Supreme Court that credited significant pieces of the State's case against petitioner; afforded precious little weight to other pieces of evidence that the Florida Supreme Court fairly relied upon; and ignored entirely still other evidence incriminating petitioner. Accordingly, the court concluded that the admission of the videotaped interrogation amounted to harmless error under the "actual prejudice" standard for collateral review set forth by the Supreme Court in Brecht v. Abrahamson.

Ins. Co. of the West v. Island Dream Homes, Inc.

Share |
by Justia Inc
IWC appealed the district court's judgment as a matter of law in favor of IDH. Hawaiian, a Florida condominium, contracted with IDH for roof repair. While IDH was conducting the repairs, a large stone veneer wall fell, causing damage to the condominium. Hawaiian's insurer, ICW, sued IDH for negligence. IDH alleged that the wall fell because it was structurally unsound. During trial, at the close of ICW's case, the district court granted IDH's motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that no reasonable jury could find that IDH was negligent because ICW failed to present any evidence on the standard of care in the roofing industry. Without reaching the issue of whether roofers were "professionals" under Florida law, the court held that ICW was required to put forth some evidence of the standard of care in the roofing industry in order to meet its burden. Because ICW failed to do so, judgment as a matter of law was appropriate. Further, the specificity requirement in Rule 50(a)(2) did not bar the granting of judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Maradiaga, et al. v. United States

Share |
by Justia Inc
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their child, appealed the dismissal of their complaint against the United States and the denial of their motions for relief from judgment and to reopen the case. The primary issue on appeal was whether the United States was amendable to suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2401(b), 2671-80, for the negligence of medical professionals employed by a federally supported health center when like private professionals would be immune from suit under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Act, Fla. Stat. 766.301-16. The United States claimed that the Compensation Act could not expand the liability of the United States under the FTCA beyond that to which an analogous private party would be amenable and that plaintiffs have waived any right to have the district court abate their action pending the determination by the ALJ. Because the court agreed with the United States, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint and the denial of their motions for relief from judgment and to reopen the case.

Lanfear, et al. v. Home Depot, Inc., et al.

Share |
by Justia Inc
Plaintiffs claimed that the fiduciaries of their retirement plan violated the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., in ways that damaged their efforts to stockpile savings for their winter years. The court held that because plaintiffs have not pleaded facts establishing that defendants abused their discretion by following the Plan's directions, they have not stated a valid claim for breach of the duty of prudence. The court also held that plaintiffs have failed to state a viable breach of loyalty claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' third and last amended complaint.

Alvarez v. Attorney General, State of FL, et al.

Share |
by Justia Inc
Plaintiff appealed from a district court order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights action against the Attorney General of Florida and the State Attorney for Florida's Eighteenth Judicial Circuit. Plaintiff claimed that the State prevented him from gaining access to physical evidence for purposes of DNA testing, in violation of his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and compulsory process, and his Fourteenth Amendment right of access to the courts. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all the claims for failure to state a claim or for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where the Supreme Court had recently made it clear that there was no freestanding constitutional right to access evidence for DNA testing, and that the federal courts could only upset a state's postconviction DNA access procedures if they were fundamentally inadequate to vindicate substantive rights.

United States v. Register

Share |
by Justia Inc
Defendant pleaded guilty to 17 counts of tax-related offenses and was sentenced to 27 months in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred by refusing to group all of his counts into a single group pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3D1.2(b) or (d) as "counts involving substantially the same harm." The court agreed and held that all 17 of defendant's counts should have been grouped under section 3D1.2(d) because their offense level was determined largely on the basis of the amount of loss, the underlying offenses were of the same general type, and grouping served section 3D1.2's principal purpose of grouping closely related counts. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing.

J.F.K., et al. v. Troup County Sch. Dist., et al.

Share |
by Justia Inc
Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of Troup's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' sexual harassment claim brought pursuant to Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681. The facts of this case stemmed from circumstances surrounding the sexual molestation of a 12-year-old boy by his 45-year-old seventh grade homeroom teacher. The court held that the district court combined Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., workplace discrimination standards with Title IX teacher-on-student harassment standards when it articulated plaintiff's burden. However, the district court's reliance on the wrong standard did not necessarily mandate that the court must now reverse its decision and remand the case. After considering the factual record and drawing all justifiable inferences in favor of plaintiffs, the court found that the information of which the school principal had knowledge was not enough to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he had actual notice sufficient to alert him to the possibility of sexual harassment of the 12-year-old by his teacher. Accordingly, although for different reasons than the district court, the court granted summary judgment.