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

AOF appealed from the district court's order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of Lakeland City. Lakeland filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the city's practice of opening each city commission legislative session with a sectarian prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution. The city maintained, inter alia, that Resolution 4848, adopted a few months after AOF complained in March 2010 about its practices in selecting invocation speakers, did not violate the Establishment Clause or the Florida Constitution. The court affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the city and the mayor, in part, because the court concluded that AOF failed to demonstrate that the adoption of Resolution 4848 resulted in proselytizing or advancing the Christian religion over all others solely because the speakers who were selected included sectarian references in their prayers. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to decide AOF's challenge to the city commission's pre-March 2010 speaker selection practice as violative of the Establishment Clause and the Florida Constitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Atheists of Florida, Inc., et al v. City of Lakeland, Florida, et al" on Justia Law

CLC sought coverage from defendants for the lawsuits filed against it in the Underlying Actions. The Underlying Actions involved allegations that CLC, together with EA and the NCAA, wrongfully profited from the unauthorized and uncompensated use of college athletes' names and likenesses in a variety of mediums, including videogames and televised and print advertisements. This appeal arose from the grant of an injunction by the Georgia district court that enjoined defendants, pursuant to the first-filed rule, from proceeding with intervention complaints filed in a pending lawsuit in California. The court found that the Georgia district court did not impermissibly exercise any de facto authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, and it did not otherwise abuse its discretion by enjoining defendants, pursuant to the first-filed rule, from proceeding with their intervention complaints. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Georgia district court's judgment. View "Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, et al" on Justia Law

The State appealed from the district court's order enjoining it from requiring plaintiff to submit to a suspicionless drug test pursuant to Section 414.0652 of the Florida Statutes, as a condition for receipt of government-provided monetary assistance for which he was otherwise qualified. Plaintiff applied for financial assistance benefits for himself and his son through Florida's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction enjoining the State from enforcing the statute because the court concluded that the State had failed to establish a substantial special need to support its mandatory suspicionless drug testing of TANF recipients. View "Lebron v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Children and Families" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his Bivens action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleged that three US ICE agents violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when they arrested and detained him in connection with the initiation of removal proceedings against him. Because all of plaintiff's claims challenged actions taken to commence removal proceedings, 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) stripped the federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Gupta v. McGahey, et al" on Justia Law

Starship, a purveyor of various novelty items including sexually explicit materials, appealed the judgment of the district court dismissing under Rule 12(b)(6) its federal constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants and refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state constitutional claims. Starship's claims stemmed from the County's decision to uphold the Business Director's denial of its application for a business license to operate a retail bookstore. The court found no error in the district court's dismissal of Starship's 1983 claims because they were barred by res judicata and the district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Starship's state law claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Starship Enterprises of Atlanta v. Coweta County, GA, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued a police officer for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officer shot plaintiff seven times while plaintiff was in his car. The officer and the city police department subsequently appealed the district court's denial of the officer's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The court concluded that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity where no reasonable police officer would have used deadly force against plaintiff and where clearly established law gave the officer fair notice that his actions violated the Fourth Amendment. Further, state agent immunity did not apply to the assault and battery claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Morton v. Kirkwood" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a grand jury investigation and the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum to a target and his wife, which required the production of records concerning their foreign financial accounts. The government conducted an investigation of, among other things, the Target and his wife's failure to disclose tax returns on foreign accounts and failure to file certain government forms for these alleged accounts. The Target and his wife refused to comply with the subpoenas by producing their records, asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court joined its sister circuits and concluded that the subpoenaed records fell within the Required Records Exception and affirmed the district court's grant of the government's motion to compel. View "In re: Grand Jury Proceedings, No. 4-10" on Justia Law

Four police officers appealed the district court's denial of their motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 unlawful search claim. Plaintiff alleged that the officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they conducted a warrantless entry into her home and searched it. The court concluded that the officers lacked even arguable probable cause or exigent circumstances justifying their entry into plaintiff's apartment without a warrant or her consent. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court's ultimate conclusion that the officers were not entitled to summary judgment, though not for the same reasons articulated by the district court. View "Feliciano v. Acosta, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the USCIS's denial of her Form I-360 self-petition for adjustment to permanent resident status. USCIS denied the petition on the grounds that it was contrary to the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA), 8 U.S.C. 1255. Petitioner claimed that USCIS's decision violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Because petitioner's husband did not satisfy the fifth requirement under the plain reading of section 1 of the CAA, the alien must be admissible to the United States for permanent residence, petitioner could not self-petition under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994's, Pub. L. No. 103-322, tit. IV, 108 Stat. 1902, amendments to the CAA. Further, the USCIS's distinction between non-Cuban aliens on the basis of a Cuban spouse's adjustment status did not violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Toro v. Sec. for the Dept. of Homeland Security, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that his former employer discriminated against him on account of his age when it terminated his employment, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. The employer argued that the reason for plaintiff's discharge was due to a reduction in force (RIF), not his age, 71-years-old. After thorough review of the record with benefit of oral argument, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer, concluding that no reasonable fact finder could find that the employer's decision was "but-for" his age and plaintiff had not established that the project manager acted as a mere cat's paw for the assistant project manager's discriminatory animus. View "Sims, Jr. v. MVM, Inc." on Justia Law