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

Corpay, Inc., a publicly traded company based in Atlanta, Georgia, markets fuel credit cards to businesses, primarily small and medium-sized enterprises. The cards were advertised to offer per-gallon fuel savings, “fuel only” purchase restrictions, and no transaction fees. However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought suit alleging that Corpay’s advertisements were misleading and its billing practices unfair. The FTC presented evidence that customers received significantly lower discounts than advertised, that “fuel only” cards were frequently used for non-fuel purchases, and that transaction fees were charged despite claims to the contrary. Additionally, Corpay was found to have automatically enrolled customers in various add-on programs and fees, often without clear disclosure or express consent, and assessed late fees even when customers paid on time.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia reviewed these claims. It granted summary judgment for the FTC on all five counts, holding that Corpay’s advertisements and fee practices were deceptive and unfair under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The court also found Corpay’s CEO, Ronald Clarke, personally liable due to his authority and knowledge of the company’s practices. To address ongoing and potential future violations, the district court issued a permanent injunction, requiring clear and unavoidable fee disclosures and separate customer assent for each fee charged.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment and permanent injunction against Corpay on all counts. It also affirmed summary judgment against Clarke on four counts but vacated the judgment on the “fuel only” advertising count, remanding for further proceedings on that issue. The appellate court held that the injunction’s requirements for express informed consent and prominent disclosure were within the district court’s equitable authority. The disposition was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Federal Trade Commission v. FleetCor Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

Three men, including the defendant, agreed to steal marijuana from a known individual at his apartment. On the day of the incident, the defendant and one accomplice entered the apartment, while the third remained in the car. The accomplice took the marijuana and left the apartment without the defendant’s knowledge. When the apartment’s occupants realized the theft, they told the defendant he could not leave until the accomplice returned. The defendant, feeling threatened, subsequently used deadly force against two men several minutes after the marijuana had already been taken. The three men later regrouped, and the defendant admitted to the shootings.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida indicted the defendant for conspiracy to commit robbery under the Hobbs Act (Count 1), substantive Hobbs Act robbery (Count 2), and using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence resulting in murder (Count 3). At trial, the defendant argued that force was not used to effectuate the taking, asserting that the theft was complete when the marijuana was taken, and that the subsequent use of force did not constitute robbery under the Hobbs Act. The district court denied the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and the jury convicted him on all counts. The court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms, including life for Count 3.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that under the Hobbs Act, robbery requires that force or threatened force be used before or during the taking of property—not solely after the property has been surreptitiously taken and carried away. Because the defendant used force only after the marijuana was stolen, the convictions for Hobbs Act robbery and for using a firearm in relation to that robbery (Counts 2 and 3) were reversed for insufficient evidence, and the sentences for those counts were vacated. The conviction and sentence for conspiracy (Count 1) were affirmed. The case was remanded for correction of the judgment. View "United States v. Grable" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers arrested the defendant after receiving a tip that a fugitive was staying at a local RV park. Upon stopping the defendant’s car for a traffic violation, deputies observed crystal methamphetamine in the front seat and, during a search, found that the defendant was carrying a handgun. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted the defendant on two counts: possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, which carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, and use of a firearm in relation to a drug crime, which also carries a consecutive five-year mandatory minimum sentence.The defendant entered a plea agreement, wherein the government promised to move for a downward departure from the statutory minimum sentence if the defendant provided substantial assistance, reserving discretion over whether and to what extent to make such a motion. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama accepted the plea. The government eventually moved for a downward departure under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, but only with respect to the drug possession count. At sentencing, the district court granted the motion and sentenced the defendant below the statutory minimum for both counts, issuing a time-served sentence on the first count and one day on the second count, served consecutively. The government objected, arguing that its motion pertained only to the first count.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) authorizes a departure below a statutory minimum sentence only when the government specifically moves for such a departure as to that particular count. Because the government did not move for a departure on the firearm count, the district court lacked authority to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum for that count. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the sentence as to the firearm count and remanded for resentencing in accordance with its opinion. View "USA v. Day" on Justia Law

Elena Mukhina, a Russian national who practices Russian Folk Christianity and has limited English proficiency, worked at Walmart in the apparel department where she interacted with customers. During her employment, she reported experiencing daily mockery and rude behavior from both customers and coworkers due to her inability to speak English fluently. She requested a transfer to the night shift, which was granted several weeks later, and her working conditions improved, though some negative treatment persisted. Mukhina also requested time off for New Year’s Eve, which she described as an important holiday for Russians. Her supervisor denied the request based on a first-come, first-served policy. Mukhina took the day off anyway and received attendance points per Walmart policy. After filing an ethics complaint, she experienced mixed changes in coworker behavior and eventually quit; Walmart then formally terminated her employment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama reviewed Mukhina’s claims of hostile work environment based on national origin, religious discrimination for denial of holiday leave, and retaliatory discharge. The court granted summary judgment for Walmart, finding that Mukhina did not present sufficient evidence that the alleged harassment was based on her national origin, that any harassment was severe or pervasive, or that Walmart was liable for coworker or customer conduct. The court also held that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for religious discrimination and did not inform Walmart of the religious nature of her holiday request. On retaliation, the court found no causal connection between her complaints and any adverse employment action.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The Eleventh Circuit held that Mukhina failed to present substantial evidence of a hostile work environment or retaliation, and failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her religious discrimination claim. View "Mukhina v. Walmart, Inc." on Justia Law

Police arrested the defendant after stopping a car in which he was a passenger and finding a loaded handgun, drugs, and cash. Subsequent searches yielded further incriminating evidence, including text messages, videos, and images related to drug trafficking on his cellphone, as well as additional firearms, ammunition, and drugs at his apartment. Officers also discovered a large quantity of marijuana in his girlfriend’s car. The government charged him with five counts: two related to drug distribution, two for illegal firearm possession, and one for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama conducted a jury trial. The government introduced all seized evidence, including digital content and rap music videos. The prosecutor, during closing argument, referred jurors to an exhibit containing Instagram messages that had not been admitted into evidence. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts, with a 45-year sentence imposed, including a 30-year mandatory minimum for the firearm-in-furtherance count. The defendant appealed, raising issues of insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, the improper admission of rap videos, improper comment on his invocation of Miranda rights, and cumulative error.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the prosecutor’s reference to the unadmitted exhibit during closing argument constituted plain error that affected the defendant’s substantial rights. The court vacated the conviction and sentence on the count for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime (Count 3) and remanded for a new trial on that count. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on all other counts, finding no reversible error regarding sufficiency of the evidence, admission of the rap videos, the Miranda issue, or cumulative error. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

An inmate at the Jefferson County Jail, who was on suicide watch and housed on the bottom floor of a two-story cell block, suffered a head injury and requested medical attention. A deputy, who was not previously familiar with the inmate, observed her distress and the visible injury. After consulting with a nurse, the deputy prepared to transport the inmate to the medical clinic and remotely unlocked her cell door from the control room. Upon release, the inmate ran upstairs and jumped from the second-story landing, sustaining additional injuries.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama considered the inmate’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the deputy was deliberately indifferent to a strong likelihood of self-harm. The district court denied the deputy’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. It found that a reasonable juror could conclude the deputy violated the inmate's constitutional rights by disregarding the risk of harm in releasing her unsupervised and that the law regarding deliberate indifference to detainee safety was clearly established.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. The appellate court determined that, although the inmate suffered a serious deprivation, there was insufficient evidence that the deputy was subjectively aware that unlocking the cell presented a substantial suicide risk specific to this inmate. The court found the deputy acted to aid the inmate and did not knowingly disregard a substantial risk of harm. The Eleventh Circuit held the deputy did not violate the inmate’s constitutional rights and was entitled to qualified immunity. It vacated the district court’s order and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for the deputy. View "Gantt v. Everett" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was charged with multiple crimes related to the production, possession, and distribution of child pornography involving her fourteen-year-old sister. Law enforcement initially investigated the defendant’s husband, but their attention turned to the defendant after she admitted to possibly sending inappropriate photos of her sister to her husband. Subsequent forensic analysis uncovered additional incriminating evidence. Both the sister and husband testified regarding the abuse. The defendant’s primary defense was that she acted under duress due to severe abuse by her husband.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, the defendant sought to introduce statements she made to a psychologist, Dr. Reynolds, as part of her duress defense. Dr. Reynolds, who had not practiced clinical work in a decade and was retained specifically to evaluate the defendant in anticipation of litigation, diagnosed her with a dissociative disorder. The government moved to exclude as hearsay those statements made by the defendant to Dr. Reynolds concerning her husband's alleged abuse, arguing that they did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4). The district court agreed, finding the statements were not made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment, but rather to prepare for trial. The court alternatively excluded the statements under Rule 403 due to prejudicial effect. After this ruling, the defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving her right to appeal the evidentiary ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for clear error. The Eleventh Circuit held that statements made to a medical expert retained for litigation, not for genuine medical diagnosis or treatment, do not qualify for the hearsay exception under Rule 803(4). The court found no error in the district court’s exclusion of the statements and affirmed the lower court’s decision. View "USA v. Keegan" on Justia Law

Several business entities formed two limited partnerships to develop and manage affordable housing complexes in Tampa, Florida. Creative Choice Homes XXX, LLC and Creative Choice Homes XXXI, LLC acted as general partners in these partnerships, with various investor and special limited partners. The partnership agreements required the general partners to follow strict financial protocols, including restrictions on advances to affiliates and requirements for the proper distribution of profits. Over several years, financial audits revealed the general partners had made unauthorized advances to related entities, violating the agreements' terms. Despite repeated warnings from the limited partners, the general partners failed to cure the breaches within the periods specified in the agreements.After the limited partners provided formal notice of default, the general partners did not fully remedy the violations in a timely manner, including continuing improper transfers and attempting to cure by making late and improperly sourced payments. The limited partners consequently removed the general partners from their positions. The general partners filed suit in state court, seeking a declaration that their removal was improper and alleging breach of contract by the limited partners. The limited partners removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and counterclaimed for breach of contract and declaratory relief.Following a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of the limited partners, finding that the general partners materially breached the partnership agreements, failed to cure, and that removal did not constitute an impermissible forfeiture, waiver, or estoppel. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the general partners’ breaches were material, their cure efforts were insufficient, and that enforcing removal under the partnership agreements was proper and not inequitable. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Creative Choice Homes XXX, LLC v. Amtax Holdings 690, LLC" on Justia Law

Congress enacted a law requiring certain business entities to report information about their beneficial owners to the Department of the Treasury, aiming to address financial crimes facilitated by anonymous corporate ownership. The law applies to corporations, LLCs, and similar entities, excluding certain organizations like banks, nonprofits, and large businesses. Reporting companies must disclose identifying information about their owners and applicants. The law contains several exemptions for inactive or specific types of entities and allows for regulatory exemptions. The plaintiffs, a business association and a small business owner, challenged the law, arguing it exceeded Congress’s powers and violated constitutional rights.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, asserting that the law was not justified under the Commerce Clause, Taxing Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, or Congress’s national security and foreign affairs powers. The district court agreed, finding that the law regulated the act of incorporation—a noncommercial activity—and that the connection to interstate commerce was too remote. As a result, the court held the law exceeded Congress’s enumerated powers and did not address the constitutional rights claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that the law facially regulates economic activity by targeting the ownership and operation of business entities, which are inherently commercial. The court found that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that anonymous business dealings have a substantial aggregate effect on interstate commerce. Additionally, the court held that the law’s uniform reporting requirements do not facially violate the Fourth Amendment, as they are reasonable, limited, and accompanied by privacy protections. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "National Small Business United v. U.S. Department of the Treasury" on Justia Law

Several participants in a terminated employee stock ownership plan asserted claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) following the sale and dissolution of their plan. The plan, created by A360, Inc. in 2016, purchased all company stock and became its sole owner. In 2019, A360 and its trustee sold the plan’s shares to another entity, amending the plan at the same time to include an arbitration clause that required all claims to be resolved individually and prohibited representative, class, or group relief. The plan was terminated shortly thereafter, and the proceeds were distributed to participants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants undervalued the shares and breached fiduciary duties, seeking plan-wide monetary and equitable relief.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia considered the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration based on the plan’s amended arbitration provisions. The district court determined that although the plan itself could assent to arbitration, the arbitration provision was unenforceable because it precluded plan-wide relief authorized by ERISA. The court found that the provision constituted a prospective waiver of statutory rights and concluded that, per the plan amendment’s own terms, the arbitration provision was not severable and thus entirely void.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Eleventh Circuit held that the arbitration provision was unenforceable under the effective vindication doctrine because it barred participants from seeking plan-wide relief for breaches of fiduciary duty, as provided by ERISA. The court joined other circuits in concluding that such provisions violate ERISA’s substantive rights and affirmed the district court’s invalidation of the arbitration procedure and denial of the motion to compel arbitration. View "Williams v. Shapiro" on Justia Law