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

Petitioner sought review of the Secretary of Labor's decision in favor of petitioner's former employee who intervened in this case. In contradiction to the findings of an ALJ, the Secretary's Administrative Review Board (ARB) found that petitioner gave pretextual, shifting explanations for terminating the employee and found that the employee suffered disparate treatment in comparison to other similarly situated employees. Consequently, the ARB found that the employee proved that petitioner fired him for engaging in conduct protected by the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), 42 U.S.C. 5851. The court concluded that the ARB erred by reviewing the ALJ's decision de novo rather than observing the Secretary's regulation requiring substantial review. The court also concluded that the ARB failed to follow Eleventh Circuit precedent when analyzing its contrary factual findings. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Stone & Webster Construction, Inc. v. U. S. Dept. of Labor, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Peruvian citizen, sought review of the decision of the BIA that he was not eligible for special rule cancellation of removal under Section 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2). The BIA denied the petition because petitioner failed to show that he was "battered or subjected to extreme cruelty" by his American citizen spouse. The court concluded that the BIA had discretion to make this determination, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision that petitioner was not a battered spouse. View "Bedoya-Melendez v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

This case concerned a challenge brought under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559, 701-706, to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's denial of petitions to designate critical habitat for the Florida panther. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, empowered the Secretary of the Interior to designate "critical habitat" for species of fish, wildlife, or plants that have been identified by the Secretary as "endangered" or "threatened." When the Service denied the petitions of environmental advocacy groups, these groups claimed that the denial of their petitions was arbitrary and capricious. The court concluded, however, that the denial of their petitions was not subject to judicial review under the APA because it was "committed to agency discretion by law." Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Conservancy of SW Florida, et al. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner and his wife, natives and citizens of China, petitioned for review of the denial of their third motion to reopen removal proceedings. After the Board denied their motion, petitioners had 30 days to file their petition for review in the court but they filed their petition one day late. Petitioners urged the court to rule that their petition was timely because they paid a commercial parcel service to provide overnight delivery 29 days after the Board issued its decision and, but for a delay caused by inclement weather, the petition would have reached the court on the day it was due. The government argued that the Board did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners' third motion to reopen. Because the court lacked jurisdiction to consider an untimely petition for review and the court was accessible on the day the petition was due, the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Lin v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Alabama sued CMS claiming that it violated the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500-596, 701-706, by issuing - without notice and an opportunity for public comment - an October 28, 2008 letter to state health officials (SHO letter). The district court held that the SHO letter constituted a substantive administrative rule issued without the notice-and-comment procedures mandated by the APA. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief in addition to vacating the SHO letter, and because Alabama's remaining claims were unripe, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "State of Alabama v. Centers For Medicare And Medicaid, et al." on Justia Law

Relators brought a qui tam action against defendant and its subsidiaries, alleging violations of the reverse false claim provision of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(7). Relators subsequently appealed the district court's dismissal, with prejudice, of their third amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court held that relators failed to allege with particularity, as required by Rule 9(b), that defendants knowingly made false statements for the purpose of concealing or avoiding an obligation to pay money to the government. Count I alleged that the 2008 Certification of Compliance was false due to the failure to report or remit the million dollars in identified Overpayments, and that defendants made and used the Certification to conceal and avoid the obligation to remit Overpayments. Count II involved the same obligation to remit Overpayments within thirty days but was based on a separate scheme and separate false records. The court held that relators have sufficiently pled each element of a reverse false claim for the Certification of Compliance and the district court's dismissal of Count I was reversed. The court also held that relators have pled all the remaining elements for a reverse false claim for the Discovery Samples and thus, the district court's dismissal of Count II was reversed. View "Matheny, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the actions and decisions of the FHWA and FDOT during the planning and development of the Indian Street Bridge Project in Martin County, Florida. Citizens brought this suit under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701-706, alleging that FHWA and FDOT violated both the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. 303, during development of the project. Citizens also requested an injunction to stop construction of the bridge. The court found no error in FHWA's incorporation of the local planning documents in the FEIS; concluded that FHWA's consideration of the relevant factors were sufficient and the Purpose and Needs Statement was not unduly narrow; concluded that appellees' compliance with NEPA was sufficient; rejected Citizens' argument that appellees erred by not completing a SEIS; and held that the analysis in the instant case demonstrated consideration that each of the alternatives was not feasible and prudent within the context of Section 4(f). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief and grant of summary judgment in favor of FHWA and FDOT. View "Citizens For Smart Growth, et al. v. Secretary, Dept. of Transp, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner National Labor Relations Board (the Board or NLRB) sought enforcement of its order against Respondent Contemporary Cars, Inc. (Contemporary). In 2008, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (the Union) filed a petition with the Board seeking certification as the representative of Mercedes-Benz service technicians employed at Contemporary. The Board held a hearing, determined the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate under two different theories, and directed that an election occur. Contemporary requested that the Board review the Regional Director’s decision regarding the bargaining unit. Despite only having two members, the Board summarily denied the request. Members of the bargaining unit voted in for representation by the Union, and the Regional Director certified the Union. To preserve its right to challenge the validity of the bargaining-unit determination in a court of appeals, Contemporary refused to bargain. The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board. Contemporary conceded the violation, and in 2009, the two-member Board issued an order finding Contemporary in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Contemporary filed a petition for review of the NLRB’s order with the federal district court. The NLRB cross-petitioned seeking enforcement. The circuit court granted Contemporary's motion to hold the case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in "New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB" (130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010)). In 2010, the NLRB issued an order setting aside its previous two-member decision to "take further action as appropriate." The original two members plus an obligatory third member issued a new order, again affirming the Regional Director's bargaining-unit decision. The NLRB subsequently filed a petition for enforcement of its order with the Eleventh Circuit. Upon review, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Contemporary's due process challenge raised on appeal of the 2010 NLRB order. Furthermore, Contemporary did not meet its burden of demonstrating the Board's determination lacked substantial evidentiary support. Therefore, the Court granted the NLRB's petition. View "NLRB v. Contemporary Cars, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal involved the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of Alabama Act No. 3010-761 (Act). The Act would prohibit a state or local government employee from arranging "by payroll deduction or otherwise" the payment of any contribution for "political activity." The district court found that the statute impinged on important free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that appellees were likely to succeed in showing the Act was both overbroad in its restrictions and unduly vague as to what constituted political activity. The court concluded that the constitutional question before it turned upon a question of state law and therefore delayed final judgment as to the preliminary injunction until the Alabama Supreme Court had an opportunity to render is interpretation of the Act by answering the court's certified questions.

The Commission brought this action to obtain a preliminary injunction against appellees, alleging that the Authority's purchase of Palmyra would create a monopoly in the relevant market. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that appellees were entitled to the state-action immunity. The Commission appealed. The court agreed with the Commission that, on the facts alleged, the joint operation of Memorial and Palmyra would substantially lessen competition or tend to create, if not create, a monopoly. The court held, however, that the acquisition of Palmyra and its subsequent operation at the Authority's behest by PPHS were authorized pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy to displace competition. Consequently, the execution of the plan was protected by state-action immunity. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.