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

Plaintiffs-appellants Donald Kipnis, Lawrence Kibler, Barry Mukamal and Kenneth Welt,appealedthe district court’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of their complaint against defendants-appellees Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank, AG and HVB U.S. Finance, Inc. (collectively, “HVB”) as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. This appeal arose out of the parties’ participation in an income tax shelter scheme known as a Custom Adjustable Rate Debt Structure (“CARDS”) transaction. In short, Plaintiffs alleged that HVB and its co-conspirators defrauded Plaintiffs by promoting and selling CARDS for their own financial gain. Plaintiffs “paid a heavy price in damages” as a result of HVB’s wrongdoing, including “substantial fees (and interest payments)” they paid HVB and other CARDS Dealers to participate in the CARDS strategy and “hundreds of thousands of dollars in ‘clean-up’ costs” they incurred after HVB failed to advise them to amend their tax returns. Consequently, Plaintiffs sought to recover the “damages that reasonably flow” from HVB’s misconduct. These damages included fees they paid to HVB and other CARDS Dealers, attorney’s fees and accountant’s fees incurred in litigating against the IRS, back taxes and interest paid by Plaintiffs, punitive damages, treble damages, and attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the instant action. The district court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that their claims did not accrue until November 1, 2012, because they did not sustain any damages until the tax court issued its final decision. By December 5, 2001 (plaintiffs’ mandatory repayment date) Plaintiffs had sustained part of the damages they sought to recover, including the fees they paid to HVB.The district court found Plaintiffs’ reliance on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in "Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lane," (565 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1990)), to be misplaced, and dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint as time-barred. The parties agreed that Florida law controlled the sole issue in this appeal: when did Plaintiffs’ claims against HVB accrue for purposes of the statutes of limitations. It was not clear under Florida law when Plaintiffs first suffered injury, and thus when their claims against HVB accrued for purposes of the applicable statutes of limitations. Because the relevant facts were undisputed, and this appeal depended wholly on interpretations of Florida law regarding the statute of limitations, the Eleventh Circuit certified a question of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. View "Kipnis v. Bayerische Hypo-UND Vereinsbank, AG" on Justia Law

The issues this appeal presented for the Eleventh Circuit's review stemmed from defendant-appellant Mark Alexander’s conviction for conspiring to sell cutting machines to companies in Iran, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the federal conspiracy statute. Alexander was the chief executive officer and part-owner of Hyrdajet Technology, LLC, a company based in Dalton, Georgia, that manufactured waterjet cutting systems. In 2007, Hydrajet Technology shipped two waterjet cutting machines to Hydrajet Mena in Dubai, where the machines then were shipped companies in Tehran. The jury convicted Alexander on the sole count of the indictment. The district court sentenced Alexander to a term of imprisonment of 18 months, followed by a period of supervised release of three years. Alexander argued on appeal: (1) that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to permit a deposition of one of Alexander’s codefendants, a fugitive residing in Iran; (2) that the district court abused its discretion when it denied Alexander’s motion for a mistrial after a juror stated that her car had been impeded temporarily by unknown persons in the parking lot adjacent to the courthouse; and (3) that the district court erred when it addressed the jury on legal issues that arose during the trial. The Eleventh Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed. View "United States v. Alexander" on Justia Law

In October 2012, John Lary filed a pro se complaint against Hong and Trinity in which he alleged that they sent him a fax in violation of two provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The questions raised by this appeal before the Eleventh Circuit came from a default judgment in favor of Lary that Joseph Hong and Trinity Physician Financial & Insurance Services used an automatic telephone dialing system to send an unsolicited advertisement to Lary’s emergency telephone line in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227: (1) whether a single fax can serve as the basis for two separate violations of the Act; (2) whether the district court erred when it decided that Lary’s complaint was ineligible for treble damages; and (3) whether the district court erred when it denied Lary a permanent injunction, denied his discovery motions, and failed to award Lary costs. Although the district court erred when it limited each fax to a single violation of the Act, the error was harmless. And on every other issue, the district court committed no error. View "Lary v. Trinity Physician Financial & Insurance Services" on Justia Law

SE Property Holdings, LLC, and affiliated entity Vision-Park Properties, LLC, (collectively “Vision”) appealed a district court’s order upholding decisions in the bankruptcy restructuring proceedings of Seaside Engineering and Surveying, LLC. Seaside was a civil engineering and surveying firm whose principal shareholders prior to all bankruptcy litigation were John Gustin, James Mainor, Ross Binkley, James Barton, and Timothy Spears. The principals branched out from their work as engineers and entered the real estate development business, forming Inlet Heights, LLC, and Costa Carina, LLC. These wholly separate entities borrowed money from Vision with personal guaranties from the principals. Inlet Heights and Costa Carina defaulted on the loans, and Vision filed suit to recover amounts under the guaranties. Gustin filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection for himself. Mainor and Binkley followed suit. All were appointed Chapter 7 trustees. Gustin, Mainor, and Binkley listed their Seaside stock as non-exempt personal property in their required filings. The Chapter 7 trustee in the Gustin case conducted an action to sell Gustin’s shares of Seaside stock. Gustin bid $95,500.00, and Vision defeated the bid with a purchase price of $100,000.00. Seaside attempted to block sale of Gustin’s stock to Vision, but the bankruptcy court confirmed the sale. Following the sale of Gustin’s stock, Seaside filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Seaside proposed to reorganize and continue operations as the entity Gulf Atlantic, LLC (“Gulf”), an entity managed by Gustin, Mainor, Binkley, and Bowden, and owned by four members, the respective irrevocable family trust of each manager. The outside equity holders would receive promissory notes with interest accruing at a rate of 4.25% in exchange for their interest in Seaside and thus be excluded from ownership in Gulf. The bankruptcy court approved the Second Amended Plan of Reorganization over Vision's objection. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court. After careful review of the record, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. View "SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Seaside Engineering & Surveying, Inc." on Justia Law

DVI Receivables XIV, LLC; DVI Receivables XVI, LLC; DVI Receivables XVII, LLC; DVI Receivables XVIII, LLC; DVI Receivables XIX, LLC; DVI Funding, LLC (collectively, the "DVI Entities"); Lyon Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a U.S. Bank Portfolio Services ("Lyon"); and U.S. Bank, N.A. ("USB") (collectively, "Appellants") appealed a district court decision to affirm a bankruptcy court's final order awarding appellee Maury Rosenberg attorney's fees and costs. The DVI Entities filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against appellee Rosenberg. After the bankruptcy court dismissed the petition, the court awarded attorney's fees and costs to appellee Rosenberg. The bankruptcy court granted Rosenberg's motion and dismissed the involuntary petition with prejudice. The bankruptcy court found, inter alia, that the DVI Entities were not eligible creditors of Rosenberg because his 2005 guaranty did not run to the DVI Entities. The DVI Entities therefore lacked standing as a matter of law to file an involuntary petition against Rosenberg. In his adversary complaint, Rosenberg asserted federal claims to recover attorney's fees, costs, and damages he incurred because of the filing of the involuntary petition, which the bankruptcy court had dismissed. After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, and following oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court affirmed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's award of the following three categories of attorney's fees and costs: (1) fees to obtain the dismissal, (2) appellate fees, and (3) fees on fees. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's award of the fourth category of fees and costs, those incurred to prosecute Rosenberg's bad-faith claims for damages, as prematurely entered. The case was remanded back to the district court: (1) to deduct from the total award the limited amount of fees and costs that were incurred solely for the legal work done to prosecute Rosenberg's bad-faith claims for damages; and (2) to reconsider that deducted fee and cost amount along with the motion to supplement. View "DVI Receivables XIV, LLC, et al. v. Rosenberg" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from violations issued by the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration. At issue was whether the word "corporation" includes limited liability companies (LLCs) for purposes of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. The court concluded that the terms "corporation" and "corporate operator" in the Mine Act are ambiguous. Applying Chevron deference, the court concluded that the Secretary's interpretation is reasonable where, most importantly, construing section 110(c) to include agents of LLCs is consistent with the legislative history. Therefore, the court held that an LLC is a corporation for purposes of the Mine Act and that section 110(c) can be used to assess civil penalties against agents of an LLC. Because substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision to hold petitioners personally liable for the order at issue, the court affirmed on this issue. Finally, the order underlying their civil penalties was not duplicative. Accordingly, the court affirmed the ALJ's decision.View "Sumpter, et al. v. Secretary of Labor, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, seafarers employed with Cunard Line cruise ships, filed a class action complaint against Carnival Corp. and Carnival PLC, a dual-listed company, alleging failure to provide maintenance and cure in accordance with general United States maritime law and the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 50101. The court held that Carnival Corp. & PLC was not properly suable in this action. Plaintiffs could have brought an action against Carnival PLC (the Cunard Line's parent company), but chose not to, instead making a tactical decision to pursue potentially broader claims against Carnival Corp. & PLC. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint.View "Sabo, et al. v. Carnival Corp., et al." on Justia Law

This case is one of many "clawback" actions initiated by the Receiver to recover profits from investors in a Ponzi scheme run by Arthur Nadel. The Lee Defendants appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Receiver on the Receiver's complaint under Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (FUFTA), Fla. Stat. 726.101 et seq. The receiver appealed the denial of prejudgment interest on the profits Lee was ordered to return to the receivership entities. Since the undisputed facts show that Nadel's transfers to the Lee Defendants satisfy all the elements of FUFTA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Receiver is due to be affirmed as is the judgment for the Receiver and against the Lee Defendants in the amount of $935,631.51. The court reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to apply the factors in Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. v. City of N. Miami, to determine whether equitable considerations justify denying or reducing a prejudgment interest award in light of Florida's general rule that prejudgment interest is an element of pecuniary damages. View "Wiand v. Lee, et al." on Justia Law

The FTC filed suit against defendants, alleging that they violated the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), 15 U.S.C. 45(a), and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (the Telemarketing Act), 15 U.S.C. 6102, by deceiving consumers in the sale of trade-association memberships. According to the FTC, consumers were led to believe that they were purchasing major medical insurance, but what they actually received were memberships in a trade association that offered only limited discounts for certain medical care. The district court entered a preliminary injunction against IAB, the individual Wood defendants, and IAB-affiliated entities. The court affirmed, concluding that the FTC met its burden of proof for injunctive relief by demonstrating that it was likely to succeed on the merits and that an injunction would serve the public interest; the district court did not abuse its discretion in freezing defendants' assets; and the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1012, does not preempt the FTC's claims. View "Federal Trade Commission v. IAB Marketing Assoc., LP, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against MAM, a Delaware corporation. Plaintiff was a MAM secured creditor and he held two Convertible Promissory Notes. Plaintiff's complaint alleged claims related to the Security Agreement that each note was secured by. MAM failed to respond to plaintiff's complaint and two weeks after plaintiff moved for entry of default judgment, Michael Gleicher moved to intervene in the case. Gleicher sought leave to intervene in two capacities: (1) as a MAM general creditor holding two Convertible Promissory Notes; and (2) as a MAM shareholder. The court concluded that Gleicher cited no source giving a general creditor a right to defend his debtor from another general creditor for the sole purpose of defeating the latter's claim. Further, Gleicher cited no source giving a corporation's shareholder the right to intervene in a suit brought against the corporation by one of its creditors for the sole purpose of defeating the creditor's claim. Gleicher has not established, nor could he, that he suffered an injury-in-fact as a result of plaintiff's filing of this lawsuit. Therefore, Gleicher lacked standing to intervene and he lacked standing to appeal the district court's final judgment. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Hawes v. Gleicher" on Justia Law