Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Two inmates at Smith State Prison in Georgia, Miguel Jackson and Kelvin Stevenson, were involved in a prison riot on December 31, 2010, after officers discovered contraband in Jackson’s cell. The officers alleged that Jackson and Stevenson assaulted them, leading to both inmates being handcuffed and escorted away. Jackson and Stevenson claimed that, after being restrained, they were severely beaten by correctional officers. They filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia against thirty-nine officers, asserting claims of excessive force and failure to intervene under the Eighth Amendment.Over the course of more than a decade, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed many defendants, and the district court granted partial summary judgment, leaving nine officers as defendants by the time of trial. Just before jury selection, plaintiffs moved to dismiss seven more defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which the district court granted, entering judgment in favor of those defendants and reserving the issue of costs and sanctions. The case proceeded to trial against Officers Catanzariti and Harrison. The jury found for Catanzariti on Jackson’s excessive force claim but found he failed to intervene when other officers used excessive force, awarding Jackson $1.00 in damages. Stevenson’s claims against both officers were rejected.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiffs challenged the district court’s grant of their Rule 41 motion and several evidentiary rulings. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the partial dismissal and entering judgment for the seven defendants, nor in admitting the challenged evidence. The court affirmed the district court’s final judgments. View "Jackson v. Catanzariti" on Justia Law

Two Saudi Arabian companies, Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company and Al Rushaid Trading Company, specialized in helping foreign manufacturers access the Saudi oil and gas market. Over several decades, they entered into various agreements with Dresser-Rand Group (DRG), including exclusive sales representation and joint venture contracts related to the sale and servicing of DRG products in Saudi Arabia. In 2014, Siemens Energy announced its acquisition of DRG, which was completed in 2015. After the acquisition, Al Rushaid alleged that Siemens excluded them from contracts and joint venture benefits, misused proprietary information, and diverted business opportunities.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida first dismissed Al Rushaid’s original complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading but allowed amendment. Al Rushaid then filed an amended complaint asserting claims for tortious interference, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed all claims without prejudice, finding that Siemens was not a stranger to the relevant business relationships due to its ownership of DRG, that the unfair competition claim was improperly pleaded and lacked necessary elements, and that the unjust enrichment claim failed to meet pleading standards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. The court held that Siemens, as owner of DRG, was not a stranger to the contracts or business relationships under Florida law, defeating the tortious interference claims. The unfair competition claim was dismissed as a shotgun pleading and for failure to allege required elements. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed for lack of clarity and because express contracts governed the subject matter. The district court’s dismissal of all claims without prejudice was affirmed. View "Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company v. Siemens Energy Incorporated" on Justia Law

A company operating stevedoring services at the Port of Mobile, Alabama, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a union representing longshore workers. The agreement included a no-strike provision and outlined procedures for resolving disputes, including arbitration. After an alleged strike by union members, the company filed a lawsuit in state court seeking a temporary restraining order and later damages for breach of the no-strike provision. The state court issued a restraining order, ending the strike within days. The union subsequently removed the case to federal court, where the company amended its complaint to seek damages, asserting that all conditions precedent for judicial action had been met.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, the union moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the dispute should be resolved through the arbitration process outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the agreement permitted the company to seek monetary damages in court for violations of the no-strike provision. The union then filed an interlocutory appeal of the order denying arbitration, while the underlying damages action remained pending.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal. The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the Federal Arbitration Act’s provision for interlocutory appeals does not apply to collective bargaining agreements covering workers engaged in interstate commerce, such as longshoremen. The court also found no basis for jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act or the collateral-order doctrine. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, leaving the district court’s order in place and expressing no opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. View "APM Terminals Mobile, LLC v. International Longshoremen's Association" on Justia Law

A nonprofit corporation purchased a 192-unit apartment complex from a government agency in 1994 at a significant discount. In exchange, the purchaser agreed by contract to rent all units at below-market rates to low-income families for 40 years and to comply with annual reporting and administrative fee requirements. Around 2016, the purchaser stopped fulfilling these obligations, including the reporting and fee provisions. The government’s successor agency, through its monitoring agent, notified the purchaser of the breach and initiated legal action seeking remedies under the contract.The purchaser counterclaimed in state court, seeking a declaration that the agreement was no longer enforceable and an injunction against further enforcement. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as successor to the original government agency, intervened, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and moved to dismiss the counterclaim. The purchaser argued that the contract’s obligations ended when Congress repealed the statute that created the original agency and authorized such agreements. The district court rejected this argument, holding that the contract remained enforceable, dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice, and remanded the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the contract’s plain language required the purchaser to comply with its obligations for the full 40-year term, regardless of the repeal of the underlying statute. The court found that the FDIC, as successor, retained both contractual and statutory authority to enforce the agreement. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the counterclaim, concluding that the agreement remains enforceable and the purchaser is still bound by its terms. View "Affordable Housing Group, Inc. v. Florida Housing Affordability, Inc." on Justia Law

Lauren Woods was injured in a car accident involving an underinsured motorist and sought benefits from her insurer, Progressive American Insurance Company, under her policy’s underinsured motorist provision. Progressive declined to pay the full policy limit. Woods then sued Progressive for breach of contract and statutory bad faith under Florida law, alleging that Progressive failed to settle her claim in good faith. After serving civil remedy notices, Woods’s case was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida first held a jury trial on Woods’s underinsured motorist claim, resulting in a verdict and final judgment in her favor that exceeded the policy limit. Woods then proceeded with her statutory bad faith claim before the same court. Prior to the bad faith trial, the parties stipulated to certain facts, including the existence and amount of the prior verdict and judgment. They also agreed that the magistrate judge would determine damages, and the jury would decide only liability. At the start of the bad faith trial, Woods limited her theory to Progressive’s conduct before the underinsured motorist trial, and the court excluded evidence and instructions regarding the prior verdict and excess judgment. The jury found for Progressive on the bad faith claim, and the court denied Woods’s motion for a new trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the prior verdict and excess judgment from the bad faith trial. The court found that, given Woods’s stipulation limiting the scope of her claim and the parties’ agreement that damages would be determined by the judge, the excluded evidence was irrelevant to the jury’s determination of liability. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Progressive. View "Woods v. Progressive American Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Several landowners in Walton County, Florida, owned beachfront properties that were affected by a county ordinance enacted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In March and April 2020, the county first closed public beaches, then issued a new ordinance that closed all beaches—public and private—making it a criminal offense for anyone, including private owners, to access or use their own beachfront property. The ordinance was enforced by law enforcement officers who entered private property, excluded owners, and threatened arrest for violations. The ordinance remained in effect for about a month, after which it expired and was not renewed.The landowners filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, raising several claims, including a Takings Clause claim under the Fifth Amendment, and seeking both damages and prospective relief. The district court dismissed the claims for prospective relief as moot, finding the ordinance had expired and was unlikely to recur. On the merits, the district court granted summary judgment to the county on all damages claims, holding that the ordinance was not a per se physical taking but rather a use restriction, and that the government’s actions during a public health emergency were entitled to deference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the dismissal of the claims for prospective relief, agreeing that the ordinance’s expiration rendered those claims moot. However, the court reversed the district court’s judgment on the Takings Clause claim, holding that the ordinance constituted a per se physical taking because it barred owners from their property and allowed government officials to physically occupy and control access. The court remanded for a determination of just compensation, holding that no public emergency, including COVID-19, creates an exception to the Takings Clause. View "Alford v. Walton County" on Justia Law

New South Media Group, LLC, along with other plaintiffs, sought to construct four types of signs—flags, artwork, political messages, and event notices—on private property in Rainbow City, Alabama. The city denied their permit applications, determining that the proposed signs were billboards, which are prohibited under Section 214 of the city’s sign ordinance. The plaintiffs believed their signs qualified for exemptions under Section 213, but the city’s definition of “billboard” encompassed their proposed signs. After receiving the denial, New South requested variances, which were also denied by the city’s zoning board.Following these denials, New South appealed in state court and brought federal and state constitutional challenges, which were dismissed in state court and then refiled in federal court. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, New South alleged that several city sign regulations violated the First Amendment and the Alabama Constitution by imposing content-based restrictions, lacking time limits for permit decisions, and granting unbridled discretion to city officials. The district court granted summary judgment to Rainbow City, finding that New South lacked standing because the injury—the denial of the applications—was caused by the unchallenged billboard prohibition, not the provisions New South contested.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Eleventh Circuit held that New South lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the non-billboard regulations because the injury was not traceable to those provisions and a favorable decision would not redress the harm caused by the billboard prohibition. The court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Rainbow City and dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. View "New South Media Group, LLC v. City of Rainbow City" on Justia Law

Three men were prosecuted for their roles in the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man, in the Satilla Shores neighborhood of Glynn County, Georgia. On February 23, 2020, Arbery was running through the neighborhood and stopped at a house under construction, which he had visited before. Gregory and Travis McMichael, who lived nearby, saw Arbery and, suspecting him of recent burglaries, armed themselves and pursued him in a truck. William Bryan, a neighbor, joined the chase in his own vehicle. The men used their trucks to block and pursue Arbery through public streets, ultimately leading to a confrontation in which Travis McMichael shot and killed Arbery.After being convicted of murder and other charges in Georgia state court and sentenced to life imprisonment, the defendants were tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. There, they were convicted of interference with rights under 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B), attempted kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), and, for the McMichaels, firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). The district court denied their motions for acquittal, finding sufficient evidence that the defendants acted because of Arbery’s race and his use of public streets, that the streets were provided or administered by the county, and that the attempted kidnapping was for a benefit and involved an instrumentality of interstate commerce.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings on all challenged elements, including racial motivation, use of public facilities, and use of an automobile as an instrumentality of interstate commerce. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed all convictions. View "USA v. Bryan" on Justia Law

Elisabeth Koletas, who was four months pregnant, requested a pat-down instead of passing through a body scanner at Southwest Florida International Airport due to concerns about radiation. During the pat-down, Transportation Security Officer (TSO) Sarno conducted a prolonged probe of Koletas’s vaginal area, focusing on material in her underwear. Koletas explained it was toilet paper used to stem pregnancy-related bleeding. Sarno, skeptical, moved Koletas to a private room and brought in Supervising TSO Shane, who further probed Koletas’s underwear and vaginal area. Shane directed Koletas to lift her dress and ultimately removed the toilet paper, finding no prohibited items. Koletas experienced psychological and physical distress from the encounter.After exhausting administrative remedies, Koletas filed suit against the United States in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing that the FTCA’s intentional tort exception preserved sovereign immunity for the alleged battery and false imprisonment. The district court agreed, relying solely on an unpublished Eleventh Circuit decision, and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that TSOs are “officers of the United States” empowered by law to execute searches under the FTCA’s law enforcement proviso, which waives sovereign immunity for certain intentional torts committed by such officers. The court found the statutory language unambiguous and joined five other circuits in this interpretation. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits. View "Koletas v. USA" on Justia Law

A mass shooting occurred at a Florida high school in 2018, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries. The Sheriff’s Office, which employed a school resource officer at the school, faced 60 lawsuits from victims alleging negligence in failing to secure the premises. The Sheriff’s Office held an excess liability insurance policy with Evanston Insurance Company, which required the Sheriff to pay a $500,000 self-insured retention (SIR) per “occurrence” and a $500,000 annual aggregate deductible before coverage would be triggered. The central dispute was whether the shooting constituted a single “occurrence” under the policy, or multiple occurrences—one for each victim or gunshot.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reviewed the case after the Sheriff filed a declaratory judgment action. The district court denied Evanston’s motion to dismiss, finding that the policy’s definition of “occurrence” was ambiguous under Florida law, and that ambiguity should be construed in favor of the insured. The court determined that the Parkland shooting was a single occurrence, meaning only one SIR applied. The court also found that the Sheriff had satisfied both the SIR and the deductible through legal expenses and other covered claims, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the Sheriff.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Eleventh Circuit held that a justiciable controversy existed, as the Sheriff had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of future injury and had satisfied the policy’s prerequisites for coverage. The court further held that, under controlling Florida law, the term “occurrence” was ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured, resulting in the Parkland shooting being treated as a single occurrence. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the Sheriff. View "Sheriff of Broward County v. Evanston Insurance Company" on Justia Law