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

After being involved in an eviction proceeding in Hillsborough County, Florida, an individual deposited funds into the court registry, as required by state law. Over time, he changed addresses and updated his contact information in the state’s e-filing system, but did not always update his address with the county court. The county clerk attempted to notify him of unclaimed funds by mailing letters to an outdated address (despite repeated returned mailings) and by publishing notice in a local Spanish-language newspaper with very limited circulation in the county. The funds were eventually declared abandoned and forfeited to the county under a Florida statute.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the county clerk. The district court found that publication in the local newspaper constituted constitutionally sufficient notice and that the forfeiture did not amount to an unconstitutional taking because statutory schemes for escheatment of abandoned property are generally permissible.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the statute’s notice procedure is not facially unconstitutional because there are situations where publication alone may suffice—for instance, when the property owner is unknown. However, the court found the clerk’s application of the statute to this individual was unconstitutional. The clerk had access to alternative means of contact (including email and a valid mailing address in the state’s e-file system) but failed to use them, relying instead on methods not reasonably calculated to provide notice. The court also determined that the individual had not abandoned the funds, since he never received constitutionally adequate notice, and thus the county’s appropriation of the funds constituted an unconstitutional taking. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Warner v. Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts" on Justia Law

A city in Georgia experienced ongoing pollution of its property from hazardous substances, including mercury and PCBs, allegedly released as a result of historical industrial operations at a nearby plant site. Georgia Power initially owned the site and later sold it to a Honeywell predecessor, with both companies involved in activities that contributed to the contamination. Over decades, these pollutants migrated into the city’s property and surrounding waterways. In the 1990s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intervened and required the companies to investigate and remediate the site’s contamination under its oversight, culminating in a consent decree that obligated the companies to implement EPA’s official remediation plan.The city filed suit in Georgia’s Superior Court of Glynn County, asserting state-law claims for continuing nuisance and trespass, seeking damages and remediation costs. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, arguing several grounds for federal jurisdiction, including federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The district court rejected all removal grounds and remanded the case to state court, finding that the defendants were not “acting under” a federal officer. The defendants appealed the remand order while litigation continued in state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the remand order, finding that the defendants’ notice of appeal triggered an automatic stay of the district court’s remand, rendering subsequent state court proceedings void for these purposes. On the merits, the court held that federal officer removal was proper because the defendants’ remediation obligations arose from and were controlled by the EPA under a consent decree. The court reversed the district court’s remand order, allowing the case to proceed in federal court. View "City of Brunswick v. Honeywell International, Inc." on Justia Law

T-Mobile South, a wireless service provider, applied for a permit to construct a 108-foot cell phone tower on vacant residential property in Roswell, Georgia. The City of Roswell denied the application based on its zoning ordinance, which required permits for new wireless facilities and allowed decision-makers to consider several factors. T-Mobile then sued, claiming the denial both prevented it from filling a service coverage gap and discriminated among service providers. The company sought an injunction compelling Roswell to issue the permit.Proceedings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia resulted in an initial grant of summary judgment for T-Mobile, which was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Supreme Court also reviewed the case and remanded it. On remand, the district court ultimately ruled in favor of T-Mobile after a bench trial, applying the “significant gap” test: it found T-Mobile had a significant gap in service that only the proposed tower would remedy and ordered Roswell to approve the necessary permits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the “effective prohibition” provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 applies to a single permit denial. The court held that the statutory prohibition on local “regulation” that “prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting” wireless service applies to general rules or regulations, not to individual zoning decisions or permit denials. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct legal standard, concluding that T-Mobile must challenge the city’s rules themselves, not individual permit denials, to invoke the effective prohibition clause. View "T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia" on Justia Law

A sign operator installed two advertising signs near Interstate 85 in Atlanta in 1993, after obtaining permits under the city’s 1982 sign code. These permits were renewed several times. In 2015, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the city amended its sign code, removing several content-based provisions but allowing lawful, nonconforming signs to remain. When the sign operator later sought to upgrade the signs, the city approved the changes, but private parties challenged the decision. The Superior Court of Fulton County found that the original permits were unlawful under the 1982 code, making the signs illegal. The city then ordered removal of the signs and issued citations when the order was not followed.The sign operator, joined by the property owner and its president, sued the City of Atlanta in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking a declaration that the 1982 sign code was unconstitutional under the First Amendment and seeking to enjoin its enforcement. The district court initially dismissed some claims for lack of jurisdiction, then reconsidered and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the code was content-based and subject to strict scrutiny, which the city had not attempted to satisfy.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs only had standing to challenge the provision of the 1982 code that applied to their signs—section 16-28.019(7)—rather than the entire code. The court further held that this provision, which distinguished between on-premises and off-premises signs, was content-neutral under the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and injunction and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the provision meets the applicable intermediate scrutiny standard. View "Anderson v. City of Atlanta, Georgia" on Justia Law

A group of three major construction firms formed a joint venture to undertake Florida’s largest infrastructure project: the reconstruction and expansion of a major interstate. The venture’s contractual and financial structure was complicated, involving a public-private partnership in which a concessionaire entity financed the project, hired the joint venture to perform the actual construction, and would gain long-term maintenance rights. One member of the joint venture, aware of mounting losses, proposed a strategy for the venture to attempt to exit the project or use the threat of termination as leverage in negotiations. This strategy relied on a contested interpretation of the contract and was opposed by the other members, who considered it dangerously speculative and likely to cause greater harm.As losses increased, the dissenting member stopped contributing required capital to the joint venture, accusing the managing partner of breaching its fiduciary duties by refusing to pursue the proposed termination strategy, and alleging a conflict of interest due to overlapping ownership between the managing partner and the concessionaire. The other members responded by contributing additional funds to keep the project solvent and countersued for breach of contract and indemnity.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held a bench trial and found that the managing partner had not breached any fiduciary duty or acted with gross negligence. The court also found that the dissenting member had materially breached the joint venture agreement by refusing to pay its share of capital calls, and ordered it to reimburse the other members, including prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the managing partner had acted in the best interest of the joint venture by not pursuing the proposed termination, and that there was no actionable conflict of interest under Florida partnership law. The court also concluded that the dissenting member’s failure to fund was a material breach, entitling the other members to indemnification and statutory prejudgment interest. View "The Lane Construction Corporation v. Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a real estate transaction in which a buyer agreed to purchase a property in Miami for $5,450,000 from two sellers, with a closing set for October 2021. The sellers subsequently discovered a mortgage restriction preventing them from closing until January 2022, which resulted in their failure to close on time. They acknowledged the breach, but subsequent negotiations to revive the deal fell through because the buyer wanted a discounted price to account for damages incurred from the delay, which the sellers refused.The matter proceeded to litigation. The buyer sued for specific performance and damages in state court; the sellers removed the action to federal court and also brought their own federal suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the buyer, not they, had breached. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the sellers’ declaratory action and granted summary judgment to the buyer on breach of contract, reserving the amount of damages for trial. After a bench trial, the district court awarded the buyer specific performance and damages, ordering the sale to proceed. The parties closed the transaction as ordered.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the issue of specific performance was moot because the sale had already occurred and the property was now owned by third parties not before the court, making further relief impossible. However, the court found the damages issue remained live. It affirmed the district court’s damages award in all respects except for damages for lost tax savings, which it reversed due to insufficient evidence that the buyer itself suffered those losses. The case was remanded for recalculation of damages consistent with the appellate decision. View "Marmol v. Kalonymus Development Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

Several landowners in Walton County, Florida, owned beachfront properties that were affected by a county ordinance enacted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In March and April 2020, the county first closed public beaches, then issued a new ordinance that closed all beaches—public and private—making it a criminal offense for anyone, including private owners, to access or use their own beachfront property. The ordinance was enforced by law enforcement officers who entered private property, excluded owners, and threatened arrest for violations. The ordinance remained in effect for about a month, after which it expired and was not renewed.The landowners filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, raising several claims, including a Takings Clause claim under the Fifth Amendment, and seeking both damages and prospective relief. The district court dismissed the claims for prospective relief as moot, finding the ordinance had expired and was unlikely to recur. On the merits, the district court granted summary judgment to the county on all damages claims, holding that the ordinance was not a per se physical taking but rather a use restriction, and that the government’s actions during a public health emergency were entitled to deference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the dismissal of the claims for prospective relief, agreeing that the ordinance’s expiration rendered those claims moot. However, the court reversed the district court’s judgment on the Takings Clause claim, holding that the ordinance constituted a per se physical taking because it barred owners from their property and allowed government officials to physically occupy and control access. The court remanded for a determination of just compensation, holding that no public emergency, including COVID-19, creates an exception to the Takings Clause. View "Alford v. Walton County" on Justia Law

New South Media Group, LLC, along with other plaintiffs, sought to construct four types of signs—flags, artwork, political messages, and event notices—on private property in Rainbow City, Alabama. The city denied their permit applications, determining that the proposed signs were billboards, which are prohibited under Section 214 of the city’s sign ordinance. The plaintiffs believed their signs qualified for exemptions under Section 213, but the city’s definition of “billboard” encompassed their proposed signs. After receiving the denial, New South requested variances, which were also denied by the city’s zoning board.Following these denials, New South appealed in state court and brought federal and state constitutional challenges, which were dismissed in state court and then refiled in federal court. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, New South alleged that several city sign regulations violated the First Amendment and the Alabama Constitution by imposing content-based restrictions, lacking time limits for permit decisions, and granting unbridled discretion to city officials. The district court granted summary judgment to Rainbow City, finding that New South lacked standing because the injury—the denial of the applications—was caused by the unchallenged billboard prohibition, not the provisions New South contested.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Eleventh Circuit held that New South lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the non-billboard regulations because the injury was not traceable to those provisions and a favorable decision would not redress the harm caused by the billboard prohibition. The court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Rainbow City and dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. View "New South Media Group, LLC v. City of Rainbow City" on Justia Law

A married couple, Carlos Del Amo and his wife, opened a joint checking account at TD Bank in Florida. The account’s signature card listed both their names and, in small print, stated that “joint accounts are owned as joint tenants with right of survivorship.” When Mr. Del Amo filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, he claimed the account as exempt property, arguing it was owned as a tenancy by the entirety—a form of ownership that protects the account from creditors of only one spouse under Florida law. Storey Mountain, a creditor, objected, contending that the account was not exempt because the signature card’s language created a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, not a tenancy by the entirety.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida found the statutory language unclear as to what constitutes “otherwise specified in writing” under Florida Statutes § 655.79(1). Relying on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand and Associates, the bankruptcy court held that, absent an express disclaimer of tenancy by the entirety on the signature card, the account was presumed to be held as a tenancy by the entirety. The court overruled Storey Mountain’s objection. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida affirmed, agreeing that the 2008 amendment to § 655.79(1) did not abrogate Beal Bank’s requirement for an express disclaimer.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower courts. The Eleventh Circuit held that, under Florida law, a joint bank account held by a married couple is presumed to be a tenancy by the entirety unless there is an explicit written disclaimer of that form of ownership. The court found that the language on the signature card was insufficient to constitute such a disclaimer, and thus the account was exempt property in the bankruptcy proceedings. View "Storey Mountain v. Del Amo" on Justia Law

In 2023, the Florida Legislature enacted Senate Bill 264, which, among other provisions, imposed restrictions on real property transactions involving persons domiciled in China who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The law included three key requirements: a purchase restriction barring certain Chinese domiciliaries from acquiring Florida real estate, a registration requirement mandating such individuals to register their existing property interests, and an affidavit requirement obligating all purchasers of Florida real estate to attest compliance with the law. Four Chinese citizens residing in Florida on various nonimmigrant visas and a real estate brokerage firm serving Chinese-speaking clients challenged these provisions, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause, the Fair Housing Act, the Due Process Clause, and federal preemption.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida against several state officials responsible for enforcing SB 264. They sought a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the purchase restriction, registration requirement, and affidavit requirement. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge all three provisions but denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the purchase restriction because none had shown an imminent injury from that provision. However, at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge the registration and affidavit requirements. The court affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction as to the registration and affidavit requirements, finding no substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the constitutional, statutory, or preemption claims. The court reversed and remanded the denial of the preliminary injunction as to the purchase restriction, instructing the district court to deny it without prejudice for lack of standing. View "Shen v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services" on Justia Law