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

The Tribe appealed from two orders and a final judgment in a fraud-and-embezzlement-related RICO suit against former tribal officials, several attorneys, a law firm, and Morgan Stanley. In this case, the undisputed current leaders of the Tribe seek entry into federal court asserting federal question jurisdiction based on federal statutory claims against Tribal and non-Tribal members alike. On the pleadings as presented at this stage of the proceedings, general justiciability concerns regarding intra-Tribal conflicts do not defeat jurisdiction. The court affirmed the dismissal of the suit for failure to state a claim, however, because the Tribe did not challenge the dismissal on these grounds in its opening brief and because the complaint lacks the requisite specificity and fails to state a plausible claim. View "Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of FL v. Cypress" on Justia Law

The company appealed the district court's order compelling arbitration of a dispute between the Company and the Union in June 2012 and the district court's enforcement of the resulting arbitration award in favor of the Union in December 2014. Although the June 2012 order was a final decision when it was issued, the Company did not appeal it until after the district court entered the December 2014 order. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the first order. In regards to the December 14 order, the court affirmed because no basis exists to vacate the arbitration award in this instance. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Union's motion for attorney's fees. The court dismissed in part and affirmed in part. View "United Steel v. Wise Alloys, LLC" on Justia Law

Key TV, a local over-the-air broadcaster, filed suit against Comcast, owner and operator of a cable television system serving the same area, alleging that it was unlawfully overcharged for the right to broadcast its content over Comcast's cable system and that Comcast illegally discriminated against it by not carrying the station in high definition or including it on Comcast's "hospitality tier." Key TV also filed two state law claims. The district court stayed the entire case under the primary jurisdiction doctrine pending resolution of Key TV's federal law claims by the FCC. The court concluded that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to entertain this interlocutory appeal where this stay does not end the litigation on the merits and it does not leave the district court without anything to do but execute the judgment. The court further concluded that the collateral order doctrine does not apply to save appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Beach TV Cable Co. v. Comcast of Florida/Georgia, LLC" on Justia Law

The court certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court and the Alabama Supreme Court subsequently declined to answer the certified question. After reconsideration of the facts and law in this case, the court found that it is unnecessary at this juncture to answer the certified question because there exists a genuine dispute of material fact regarding a preliminary (and dispositive) issue: the nature of the parties’ relationship. The court concluded that the record is presently insufficient to determine whether the parties entered into an attorney-client relationship or a principal-agent relationship when Mississippi Valley hired defendant as an attorney agent. The court will not pass on the certified question regarding whether defendant’s conduct does or does not constitute the provision of legal services, because if the parties never entered into an attorney-client relationship, then defendant’s conduct is irrelevant. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co. v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Ameritox and Millennium are competitors in the drug-testing industry. Ameritox filed suit against Millennium, alleging in its original complaint that Millennium had “formed a business plan to increase its market share, revenue, and profits” by providing financial inducements and other kickbacks, in violation of both federal and state law. The jury subsequently awarded judgment in favor of Ameritox and the district court denied Millennium’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and granted in part and denied in part its motion for a new trial or reduction in the award of punitive damages; upon reconsideration, the district court reduced the award of punitive damages. In this appeal, the court concluded that the district court's decision to retain supplemental jurisdiction over novel and complex state-law claims hailing from nine different states - claims that the parties either did know or should have known were novel and complex - constituted an abuse of discretion.. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice so the parties can litigate their claims in a proper forum. View "Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Labs." on Justia Law

Gaston Glock, creator of the Glock 17 handgun, began divorce proceedings with his wife, Helga, in Austria in 2011. The litigation moved to the United States in 2013, where Helga filed a miscellaneous proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 1782, seeking to discover evidence from the Glock Entities, in the United States for use in Gaston and Helga’s Austrian divorce proceedings. After Helga filed the section 1782 application, she filed a separate Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, lawsuit, in the United States, against Gaston and the Glock Entities. Helga then returned to the section 1782 court in 2014, to seek authorization to allow her to disclose the documents she obtained in that litigation to her RICO attorney, for potential use in the RICO Action. The magistrate judge subsequently vacated her earlier paperless order but then entered a written order granting Helga permission to use the documents in the RICO Action. The district judge sustained the objections of the Glock Entities and concluded that the magistrate judge’s determination that Helga could use evidence obtained in a section 1782 proceeding for a separate civil lawsuit in the United States was “contrary to law.” In regard to the Protective Order, the district court concluded that although it did not expressly exclude use of the documents in civil lawsuits in the United States, it must be construed to prohibit such use since it was entered into in the context of a section 1782 action. Nevertheless, the district court stated, “This order does not preclude Helga Glock from seeking the documents in the [RICO] Action.” The court concluded that the restrictions on subsequent use of evidence obtained under section 1782 urged here by the Glock Entities are simply not supported by statutory text, legislative history, conventional discovery practice, or policy considerations. The court found that section 1782 does not preclude, as a matter of law, the use of evidence procured pursuant to it in subsequent United States civil litigation. Because the district court’s rulings were erroneous as a matter of law, the court reversed the judgment. View "Glock v. Glock, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Phillip Morris after her husband's death, alleging claims of fraudulent concealment, conspiracy, negligence, and strict liability under Florida law. The jury found Phillip Morris comparatively liable for the husband's injuries and death but awarded plaintiff no damages. Plaintiff argued to the district court that the verdict was inconsistent with liability and that the jury did not follow the district court's instructions. The district court denied plaintiff's request and then plaintiff moved for a mistrial based on the same reasons. The district court denied the motion. The court held that a party’s post-trial claim that a jury verdict is inconsistent does not preserve for appeal the separate and legally distinct claim that the verdict was the result of an unlawful jury compromise. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, as well as the final judgment entered on the jury's verdict. View "Reider v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a wood manufacturer, alleging that wood he bought for a fence at his home was not properly pressure-treated and that it prematurely rotted. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ala. Code 8-19-5(5), (7), and for breach of express warranty. The court held that where a conflict exists between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which authorizes class actions including for consumer claims of this kind, and the ADTPA, which creates a private right of action but forbids private class actions, Rule 23 controls. The court also concluded that Alabama law allows a consumer to recover for breach of an express warranty, even in the absence of privity, in some circumstances. In this case, the court held that the complaint adequately alleges the required circumstances and thus states an express warranty claim on which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Tamborlee for negligence in the Southern District of Florida after she was injured during a shore excursion in Belize. At issue was whether the district court had general personal jurisdiction over Tamborlee, a Panama corporation that provides shore excursions for tourists in Belize. The court affirmed the district court's grant of Tamborlee's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because Tamborlee's activities in Florida are not so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home there. Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that any office Tamborlee might have had in Florida played a significant role in its operations and Tamborlee’s remaining activities in Florida are not meaningfully different from the activities of the defendants in general personal jurisdiction caselaw. View "Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt." on Justia Law

Defendants Hi-Tech, Jared Wheat, Stephen Smith, and Dr. Terrill Mark Wright appealed the district court's order holding them in contempt for violating injunctions that prohibit them from making any representations about weight-loss products unless they possess and rely upon competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representation. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion when it held defendants in contempt because the district court misapplied the doctrine of collateral estoppel when it refused to consider defendants' evidence of substantiation. In this case, the level of substantiation the injunctions require for the representations at issue in the contempt proceedings is not "identical" to any issue the district court decided in the earlier litigation. Accordingly, the court vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings. View "FTC v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals" on Justia Law