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

The case involves a shooting incident at the Pride of St. Lucie Lodge 1189, Inc. (the "Lodge") on March 2, 2015, where Tanya Oliver was shot in the forehead and later died from her injuries. The Lodge was insured by Kinsale Insurance Company ("Kinsale"), which had a $50,000 policy sublimit for claims arising out of assault and battery. The Estate of Tanya Oliver sued the Lodge for negligent security, and a jury awarded damages exceeding $3.348 million.The Lodge and the Estate then sued Kinsale for common law bad faith under Florida law, claiming Kinsale breached its duty of good faith by failing to make a settlement offer within the policy limits before the Estate’s claim was filed. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment to Kinsale, concluding that Kinsale had no duty to initiate settlement negotiations because no reasonable jury could find that this was a case of "clear liability."The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Lodge and the Estate, a jury could reasonably find that Kinsale knew or should have known that liability was clear. The court noted that the Lodge's security guards had failed to prevent a second fight in the parking lot, which led to the shooting, and that Kinsale was aware of the severity of Oliver's injuries and the potential for damages far exceeding the policy limit.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for trial by jury, holding that a jury could reasonably find that Kinsale acted in bad faith by failing to tender its policy limit before the Estate filed suit. View "Kinsale Insurance Company v. Pride of St. Lucie Lodge 1189, Inc." on Justia Law

On Thanksgiving night in 2018, Officer David Alexander, a policeman with the City of Hoover, was on foot patrol at the Galleria Mall in Birmingham, Alabama. During a suspected active shooting situation, Officer Alexander saw Emantic "E.J." Fitzgerald Bradford moving towards two men with a gun in his hand. Without issuing a verbal warning, Officer Alexander shot and killed Mr. Bradford, who was legally authorized to carry his gun and was attempting to provide assistance.April Pipkins, Mr. Bradford's mother and representative of his estate, filed a lawsuit against Officer Alexander, the City of Hoover, and other defendants, asserting Fourth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims for negligence and wantonness. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissed the state law claims and granted summary judgment on the § 1983 claims, ruling that Officer Alexander's use of deadly force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that a verbal warning was not feasible under the circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that Officer Alexander acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment given the circumstances, which included a crowded mall, the sound of gunshots, and Mr. Bradford running with a gun towards two men. The court also found that a verbal warning was not feasible due to the immediate threat perceived by Officer Alexander. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the state law claims, concluding that the Mall defendants did not owe a duty to protect Mr. Bradford from the criminal acts of a third party and that the complaint did not plausibly allege foreseeability or incompetency in hiring, training, and supervising Officer Alexander. View "Pipkins v. City of Hoover, Alabama" on Justia Law

Ronald Rubin filed a lawsuit naming Kimberly Grippa as part of a criminal enterprise. His lawyer sent allegedly defamatory letters to state officials, asking them to investigate the alleged criminal enterprise and included copies of the complaint. Grippa sued Rubin for defamation, claiming the letters harmed her reputation and professional standing. Rubin moved for summary judgment, arguing the letters were protected by Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges and that he could not be held vicariously liable for his lawyer’s actions.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied Rubin’s motion for summary judgment on all grounds. The court found that the letters were not protected by the absolute litigation privilege because they were sent outside the litigation process and included additional statements beyond those in the complaint. The court also determined that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the statements were made with express malice, precluding the qualified litigation privilege. Lastly, the court rejected Rubin’s vicarious liability argument, suggesting that Rubin directed his lawyer’s actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the denial of Florida’s absolute litigation privilege is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine but lacked jurisdiction to consider the denial of the qualified litigation privilege or the vicarious liability issue. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the absolute litigation privilege, concluding that the letters were sent outside the judicial process and included additional defamatory statements. The court dismissed the appeal regarding the qualified litigation privilege and vicarious liability for lack of jurisdiction. View "Grippa v. Rubin" on Justia Law

Edward Burrell, an inmate at Clarke County Jail, suffered a heart attack while serving a sentence. Chief Deputy Sheriff and Jail Administrator Tyler Norris drove Burrell to the hospital instead of calling an ambulance and released him from jail to avoid medical costs. Burrell died shortly after arriving at the hospital. Barbara Donald, administratrix of Burrell's estate, claimed that Norris's actions delayed medical care and caused Burrell's death, bringing a federal constitutional claim and an Alabama wrongful-death claim.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama denied Norris's motion for summary judgment on both claims. The court held that Norris was not entitled to qualified immunity because he acted outside his discretionary authority by releasing Burrell early. The court also found that a reasonable jury could determine Norris's actions violated Burrell's constitutional rights. The court did not address whether Norris's actions violated clearly established law. For the wrongful-death claim, the court denied summary judgment under Alabama’s jailer immunity statute, concluding Norris was not acting within the scope of his duties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Norris acted within his discretionary authority when he decided to drive Burrell to the hospital. The court emphasized that the discretionary-authority inquiry focuses on the general nature of the action, not whether the officer made the correct decision. The court found that Norris's actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional right and concluded that Norris was entitled to qualified immunity for the federal claim, reversing the district court's denial of summary judgment.Regarding the state wrongful-death claim, the court noted that the district court conflated state immunity with statutory jailer immunity. The court vacated the district court's denial of summary judgment on the state claim and remanded for the district court to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and, if so, to decide the issue of state immunity. View "Donald v. Norris" on Justia Law

James Wilson III used earplugs manufactured by Hearos, LLC at a shooting range and subsequently suffered significant hearing loss. He filed a lawsuit against Hearos in state court, alleging various tort claims. Protective Industrial Products, Inc. (PIP), a non-party, removed the case to federal court. The district court noted the unusual removal by a non-party but proceeded as neither Wilson nor Hearos objected to the court's jurisdiction. The district court dismissed Wilson's claims as time-barred under Georgia law.The district court for the Southern District of Georgia found that Wilson filed his complaint three days before the statute of limitations expired but did not serve Hearos until 117 days after the limitations period ended. The court concluded that Wilson failed to demonstrate the required diligence in serving Hearos, leading to the dismissal of his claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that removal by a non-party is a procedural defect, not a jurisdictional one, and must be objected to within 30 days under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Since Wilson did not object within this period, he waived his right to challenge the removal. The court also affirmed that Georgia's service-and-diligence rule, rather than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), applied to determine if Wilson's claims were time-barred. The court concluded that Wilson did not act with the required diligence to serve Hearos, affirming the district court's dismissal of his claims. View "Wilson v. Hearos, LLC" on Justia Law

Jose Villegas, a 39-year-old inmate at Lake Correctional Institution (LCI) in Florida, died following a physical confrontation with correctional officers. The incident began when officers found Villegas unconscious in his cell. Upon regaining consciousness, Villegas resisted the officers' attempts to restrain him. The officers eventually subdued Villegas and transported him to a medical unit, but he was pronounced dead upon arrival. The autopsy reported that Villegas died from restraint asphyxia, with excited delirium as a contributing factor, and noted the presence of synthetic cannabinoids in his system.Douglas B. Stalley, representing Villegas's estate and his minor children, filed a lawsuit against the officers, their supervisors, and the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) for negligence, wrongful death, excessive force, deliberate indifference, and supervisory liability. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the constitutional claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law wrongful death claim, remanding it to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. Stalley appealed the district court's decision regarding the deliberate indifference and supervisory liability claims. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the officers' decision to transport Villegas to a medical unit rather than provide on-scene care did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. Consequently, the supervisory liability claim also failed, as it was contingent on the underlying constitutional violation. View "Stalley v. Lake Correctional Institution Warden" on Justia Law

On February 11, 2021, Twitter suspended Project Veritas, an investigative journalistic organization, for allegedly violating its policy against publishing private information. Four days later, CNN's Ana Cabrera and Brian Stelter discussed the suspension on-air, with Cabrera suggesting that Twitter banned Veritas for "promoting misinformation." Veritas disputed this characterization, asserting that the suspension was due to a violation of Twitter's "doxxing" policy. When CNN refused to issue a retraction, Veritas sued for defamation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted CNN's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that Cabrera's statements were substantially true under New York defamation law and thus not actionable. The court found that the statements about misinformation were not significantly different in their impact on Veritas's reputation compared to the actual reason for the suspension.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Veritas plausibly alleged a defamation claim under New York law, as the statements made by Cabrera were not substantially true and could have a different effect on the audience's perception compared to the actual reason for the suspension. The court also determined that Veritas plausibly alleged that the statements were made with actual malice, as Cabrera had previously tweeted the correct reason for the suspension, indicating knowledge of the true facts.The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the case and remanded it for further proceedings. The main holding was that Veritas's defamation claim was plausible because the statements were not substantially true and were made with actual malice. View "Project Veritas v. Cable News Network, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, co-personal representatives of the estate of Sara Schleider, filed a lawsuit in Florida state court against GVDB Operations, LLC, and JSMGV Management Company, LLC. They alleged that the defendants failed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at their assisted living facility, resulting in Sara Schleider contracting the virus and subsequently dying. The plaintiffs asserted state-law claims for survival and wrongful death under Florida Statute § 429.28, alleging negligence and, alternatively, willful misconduct or gross negligence.The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, claiming federal subject matter jurisdiction on three grounds: acting under a federal officer, complete preemption by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, and an embedded federal question concerning the PREP Act. The district court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court, finding that the defendants' arguments did not establish federal jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the remand, holding that the defendants did not act under a federal officer, as their compliance with federal guidelines did not equate to acting under federal authority. The court also determined that the PREP Act did not completely preempt the plaintiffs' state-law claims, as the Act's willful misconduct provision did not wholly displace state-law causes of action for negligence. Lastly, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims did not raise a substantial federal question under the Grable doctrine, as the federal issues were not necessarily raised by the plaintiffs' well-pleaded complaint. Thus, the district court's remand to state court was affirmed. View "Howard Schleider v. GVDB Operations, LLC" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, Lester Jenkins and Dwight Siples Jr., participated in the cleanup of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and later developed chronic sinusitis, which they attributed to exposure to crude oil and dispersants during the cleanup. They filed suits against BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America Production Company, claiming that their medical conditions were caused by this exposure. The plaintiffs relied on expert testimony to establish general causation, which is necessary in toxic-tort cases where the medical community does not recognize the alleged toxins as harmful.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida reviewed the expert testimonies of Dr. Michael Freeman and Dr. Gina Solomon, who opined that a causal relationship existed between the cleanup work and chronic sinusitis. However, the district court excluded their testimonies, finding that neither expert identified a minimal level of exposure at which crude oil, its dispersants, or associated chemicals are hazardous to humans. The court also noted that the experts failed to identify a statistically significant association between the chronic conditions and exposure to crude oil, assess the limitations of various studies, or meaningfully consider causal factors. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of BP.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimonies. It emphasized that in toxic-tort cases, plaintiffs must demonstrate the levels of exposure that are hazardous to humans generally. The court found that the experts failed to establish a harmful level of exposure for crude oil or its dispersants and did not adequately support their causation opinions with reliable scientific evidence. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of BP was affirmed. View "In Re Deepwater Horizon Belo Cases" on Justia Law

Candace Hensley sustained injuries from a trip and fall accident at a Westin Hotel in Indianapolis, Indiana, on May 2, 2017. She and her husband, Timothy Hensley, filed a lawsuit in the State Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, against Westin Hotel and Westin Hotel Management, L.P. (WHM), alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Merritt Hospitality, LLC (Merritt) and WHM responded, asserting that Merritt was incorrectly named and that Westin Hotel was not a legal entity. The Hensleys amended their complaint to include Merritt and Marriott International, Inc. (Marriott). The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia based on diversity jurisdiction.Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, which had paid workers’ compensation benefits to Mrs. Hensley, intervened to protect its subrogation lien. The district court applied Indiana tort law and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that they either did not control the hotel premises or lacked actual knowledge of the hazard. The court also dismissed Hartford’s claim, as it depended on the Hensleys' success. The Hensleys appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court lost subject matter jurisdiction when Hartford, an indispensable party, intervened, destroying complete diversity. The appellate court vacated the district court’s summary judgment order and remanded the case with instructions to remand it to the State Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia. The main holding was that Hartford’s intervention as a matter of right and its status as an indispensable party required the case to be remanded to state court due to the lack of complete diversity. View "Hensley v. Westin Hotel" on Justia Law