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

In this multidistrict litigation (MDL), plaintiffs contend that a Colombian paramilitary group killed their family members, and that Chiquita paid the paramilitary group over $1.7 million to quell labor unrest and drive other guerilla groups out of the banana-growing regions of Colombia. All plaintiffs obtained a protective order prohibiting the disclosure of "private facts" that could reveal their identities or personal information.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the privacy protections, holding that the district court acted within its discretion when it held that plaintiffs failed to meet their necessary burdens. In this case, the district court had ample comparator evidence to support its ruling; the evidence does not compel the finding that litigants pursuing tort claims against a paramilitary-affiliated entity in the United States face similar risks of harm; and the court rejected the idea that the district court's pseudonym ruling conflicts with its forum non conveniens ruling. Furthermore, the district court engaged in balancing sufficient to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), where it weighed plaintiffs' safety interests against Chiquita's interests in administrative feasibility. View "Carrizosa v. Chiquita Brands International, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Charles and Myra Corley, filed suit in state court against dozens of companies that allegedly supplied products containing asbestos that caused Charles's malignant mesothelioma. After removal to federal court, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation then transferred the suit to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which eventually returned it to the Northern District of Alabama. After the Northern District of Alabama granted plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss the last two companies in the suit, plaintiffs then sought review of an order entered by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying their motion to reconsider a partial summary judgment in favor of several companies. In the motion, plaintiffs argued for the first time that the district court should apply maritime law, not state law, to determine the merits of their claims.The Eleventh Circuit held that an order granting a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a final order; the court has territorial jurisdiction to review an interlocutory decision by an out-of-circuit district court that merged into the final judgment of a district court in this circuit; and plaintiffs have standing to appeal from the final judgment accompanying an order granting the motion for a voluntary dismissal. Finally, the court affirmed the judgment against plaintiffs, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow plaintiffs to argue that a different substantive law governed their complaint at this late stage in the litigation. View "Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal based on lack of standing of this action for damages under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and remanded with instructions for the district court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The court held that the Addendum (but not the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment) is impermissible parol evidence; although the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment could create standing on the basis of retroactive assignment of claims, plaintiffs did not receive any rights under it; and the court declined to consider whether the Recovery Agreement by itself equitably assigned plaintiffs HFHP's rights under the Act because plaintiffs did not assert this argument before the district court. View "MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. QBE Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to pursue their claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Plaintiffs alleged that collection letters were misleading and unfair in falsely suggesting that they could be sued or that the debt could be reported to credit-rating agencies. The court wrote that plaintiffs seek to recover for representations that they contend were misleading or unfair, but without proving even that they relied on the representations, much less that the reliance caused them any damages. View "Trichell v. Midland Credit Management, Inc." on Justia Law

Thirty-nine plaintiffs—two American and thirty-seven foreign—filed suit agianst Citigroup, claiming that fraudulent cash advances lured them into investing in or contracting with Oceanografía and that either Citigroup or Oceanografía knowingly misrepresented Oceanografía's financial stability.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of Citigroup's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, holding that the district court did not apply the deference owed to the domestic plaintiffs, and it erred in weighing the Gulf Oil private interest factors as to all the plaintiffs because Citigroup did not satisfy its burden. In this case, the court held that the district court mistakenly gave only "reduced" deference to the domestic plaintiffs' choice of forum. The court also held that Citigroup—which had the burden of persuasion—did not support its claims that most of the relevant documents and witnesses are located in Mexico. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of the United States' interests under the public interest factors. View "Otto Candies, LLC v. Citigroup, Inc." on Justia Law

After injuring her foot on a rug while onboard a Carnival ship, plaintiff filed suit against Carnival in both state and federal court, seeking damages for the injuries she allegedly suffered onboard the ship. In this case, plaintiff entered into a contract with Carnival that contained a forum-selection clause.Under the forum-selection clause's plain language, when jurisdiction for a claim could lie in federal district court, federal court is the only option for a plaintiff. The court held that plaintiff's claim for negligence at sea falls well within the walls of the federal court's admiralty jurisdiction. Even without explicitly invoking admiralty jurisdiction, the court held that plaintiff's complaint is subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h)'s provision rendering her claim an admiralty or maritime claim. View "DeRoy v. Carnival Corp." on Justia Law

After the district court upheld third-party counterclaim defendants' removal of this case from Alabama state court, the Supreme Court issued Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743 (2019), which held that third-party counterclaim defendants cannot remove a "civil action" under 28 U.S.C. 1441(c).The Eleventh Circuit held that Home Depot makes the holding in Carl Heck Engineers, Inc. v. Lafourche Parish Police Jury, 622 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1980), no longer good law. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of third-party counterclaim plaintiffs Philip and Jennie Bowling's motion to remand, which was based in substantial part on Carl Heck. The court explained that the analysis in Home Depot leaves no doubt that, even if Carl Heck involves section 1441(c), it is no longer good law because it is impossible to read the statute as a whole and conclude that the same term in sections 1441(a) and 1441(c) has different meanings. Furthermore, section 1441(c) does not provide for removal jurisdiction of the Bowlings' claims against the third-party counterclaim defendants here because section 1441(a) is the operative clause that authorizes removal, and section 1441(c) merely adds a condition for certain types of civil cases. Because the district court erred in denying the Bowlings' motion to remand, the court held that the district court's order granting third-party counterclaim defendants' motion for summary judgment must be vacated, and the entire case must be remanded to state court. View "Bowling v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit joined its sister circuits in holding that a district court may address a sanctions motion based on its inherent powers or 28 U.S.C. 1927 even if it lacks jurisdiction over the underlying case. The court explained that these sanctions, like Rule 11 sanctions, do not require a court to rule on the merits of the underlying case. Furthermore, the purpose of the sanctions outlasts the end of the case.In this case, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for sanctions, because defendant failed to make a showing of bad faith. Defendant's only exhibit submitted to show bad faith could be interpreted in more than one way, and the district court also considered defendant's nearly three-year delay in bringing his sanctions motion. View "Hyde v. Irish" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit against the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission and its former statewide chair. The district court dismissed the action for want of subject matter jurisdiction because neither the Commission nor the chair is an "agency" within the meaning of FOIA.The court agreed with the district court that the Commission is not an agency. However, because this fact creates a defect in the merits of the complaint rather than in the district court's jurisdiction, the court held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. View "Statton v. Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Bay Point in state court and added DCT as a plaintiff in an amended complaint, alleging that Bay Point's foreclosure of two properties caused him to lose the collateral's value exceeding the debt balance, and to suffer mental anguish. After Bay Point removed to bankruptcy court, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order in favor of Bay Point. Plaintiff and DCT appealed, but then the district court granted DCT's motion to dismiss.The Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiff lacked Article III standing, because he failed to allege a particularized, actual injury. Furthermore, plaintiff was not a person aggrieved. Therefore, plaintiff may not appeal the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's order. View "Thakkar v. Bay Point Capital Partners, LP" on Justia Law