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

Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in Florida state court against BLP, alleging that BLP sent unsolicited faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), and its implementing regulations. BLP removed to federal court and BLP served each named plaintiff an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. BLP then moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the unaccepted Rule 68 offers rendered the case moot. The court concluded that a plaintiff's individual claim is not mooted by an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment, and a proffer that moots a named plaintiff's individual claim does not moot a class action in circumstances like those presented in this case, even if the proffer comes before the plaintiff has moved to certify the class. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the action. View "Jeffrey M. Stein D.D.S., et al. v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, worker who helped build the new Marlins ballpark, filed suit alleging that the contractor who employed them failed to pay them the wages and overtime that they were entitled to receive under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 206. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that plaintiffs' failure to reiterate their unpaid-overtime-hours claim in the statement of claim document is not controlling where that document does not have the status of a pleading and is not an amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The existence of federal jurisdiction at the pleading stage is to be determined based on the contents of the complaint, applying the well-pleaded complaint rule. In this case, the unpaid-overtime-hours claim in Count I alleges that plaintiffs were not always paid time-and-a-half for hours beyond forty worked in a workweek but were instead paid their regular rate for some overtime hours and nothing at all for others. The court concluded that plaintiffs alleged a claim on the face of the complaint and reversed the judgment of the district court, remanding for further proceedings. View "Calderon, et al. v. Form Works/Baker JV, LLC" on Justia Law

After his termination, plaintiff, a tenured university professor at Georgia Tech, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Georgia Tech's President and others. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The court concluded that plaintiff was afforded adequate procedural due process prior to revocation of his tenure and termination of his employment with Georgia Tech where the pre-termination procedures afforded plaintiff satisfied the established guidelines for minimum procedural due process. Plaintiff received prior, written notice of the charges against him, he presented argument and evidence on his own behalf, he had a right to appeal his termination to the Board of Regents, and he submitted a written appeal to the Board of Regents. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Laskar, Ph.D. v. Peterson, et al." on Justia Law

Hundreds of property owners filed toxic tort suits against P&W, an aircraft and rocket engine manufacturer, for damages resulting from purported groundwater contamination. The district court granted P&W's motions for Lone Pine case management orders. The district court subsequently dismissed plaintiffs' second amended complaints with prejudice and plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded, as a general matter, that it is not legally appropriate for a district court to issue a Lone Pine order requiring factual support for the plaintiffs' claims before it has determined that those claims survive a motion to dismiss under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. Whatever the general propriety and/or utility of Lone Pine orders, they should not be used as (or become) the platforms for pseudo-summary judgment motions at a time when the case is not at issue and the parties have not engaged in reciprocal discovery. On the merits, the court held that the grounds for dismissal urged by P&W and relied upon the district court did not warrant dismissal of the second amended complaints. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Adinolfe, et al. v. United Technologies Corp." on Justia Law

The district court enjoined SFM from prosecuting an action in Florida state court against BAS. On appeal, SFM challenged the issuance of the injunction, arguing that it does not fall within the narrow "relitigation exception" to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 2283. The court held that SFM's state court action presents some legal claims that differ from those decided in the prior federal action. With respect to other claims now advanced by SFM, however, the court concluded that the district court had the authority to enjoin their relitigation in state court. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.View "SFM Holdings Ltd, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed a judgment in favor of his former employer and against his complaint of racial discrimination and retaliation. At issue was whether the district court erred when it entered a judgment as a matter of law based on inconsistent jury verdicts. The court held that, to determine whether to grant a judgment as a matter of law, the district court should have considered only the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the verdict, not the consistency of that verdict with another. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to reinstate the jury verdict against the employer for retaliation. The court affirmed summary judgment against plaintiff's claim of discrimination against plaintiff's supervisor.View "Connelly v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Trans., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant and his company, Phat Groov Music, appealed the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss a complaint filed by the Royalty Network and others. The court concluded that it had appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and affirmed the district court's order because Georgia's anti-SLAPP statute, O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1, does not apply in federal court in a diversity action. View "The Royalty Network, Inc., et al. v. Harris, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against four prison officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and seeking money damages. The jury returned a verdict for the defense and plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that a sleeping juror should have been removed from the jury. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion and defendants moved for reconsideration. The Magistrate Judge then granted the motion for reconsideration and denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiff could not get a "second bite of the apple" after the jury returned an unfavorable verdict when he was aware of the juror's purported misconduct and declined to object to her retention on the jury at trial.View "Cummings v. Dept. of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in state court against defendants, alleging theories of negligence, vicarious liability, and premises liability. Although one defendant is a citizen of the forum state, two non-forum defendants removed the case to federal court before the forum defendant had yet been served. The district court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) so that plaintiff could refile in state court in such a manner as to irrefutably trigger the forum-defendant rule and preclude a second removal. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion and, assuming arguendo, that this case was removable, the court held that on the particular facts of the case defendants did not lose any substantial right by the dismissal.View "Goodwin v. Reynolds, et al." on Justia Law

The district court entered a final judgment that barred future lawsuits against OBWB related to certain false patent marking or advertising after OBWB settled a qui tam false marketing suit. Subsequently, Bersin filed suit against OBWB for damages tied to Bersin's investment in an OBWB franchise. The district court issued an order that purported to enforce the federal judgment by enjoining Bersin's state court suit. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal where the order was not final under 28 U.S.C. 1291 because it was not the proper tool for enforcing an injunction. The order did not hold a noncompliant party in contempt or impose sanctions, nor was the order an appealable interlocutory decision for purposes of section 1292(a)(1). The order merely clarified the existing injunction found in the district court's judgment. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Bersin Bagel Group v. The Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Co., et al." on Justia Law