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

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-68, alleging, inter alia, that Sanderson payed depressed wages to all genuinely work-authorized employees at its chicken processing plant. The court concluded that plaintiffs have failed to plausibly establish two of the elements of a civil RICO cause of action - that they suffered an injury in the form of wage depression, or that, even if the court were to assume that they had plausibly shown injury and but-for cause, their injury was directly and proximately caused by Sanderson's pattern of 18 U.S.C. 1546 violations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Simpson, et al. v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Winn-Dixie filed suit claiming that it suffered more than $90 million in lost profits because Defendants Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Big Lots violated, and continue to violate, the restrictive covenants limiting grocery sales by other tenants in a shopping center in which Winn-Dixie was the anchor store. The court held that, for forty-one Florida stores, the district court misapplied Florida law in determining whether defendants had violated Winn-Dixie's restrictive covenants; the court reversed and remanded for these stores for a new trial based on a definition of "staple or fancy groceries" and "sales area" consistent with the holding of the Florida Third District Court of Appeals; the court held that the district court applied incorrect state law in determining whether defendants had violated the terms of restrictive covenants at thirteen stores in Alabama and Georgia; the court reversed and remanded for interpretation of covenants binding these Alabama and Georgia stores in accordance with the appropriate law of each state; and the court affirmed as to the forty-three remaining stores for which the district court denied all relief on other grounds. View "Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Dolgencorp, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal of her putative class action complaint brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The court concluded that, based on the record to date and at this Rule 12(b)(6) juncture, the district court erred in finding that the three-year limitations period applied to plaintiff's claims in Count 2. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff's claims in Count 2 were time-barred by ERISA's six-year period of limitations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Fuller v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court plainly erred by imposing an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). In light of Descamps v. United States, a conviction under Alabama Code 13A-7-7 could not qualify as generic burglary under the ACCA. Therefore, defendant did not have the three qualifying convictions necessary for the enhancement. Further, such error affected defendant's substantial rights. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Honduran citizen who suffered a back injury while employed as a mason aboard one of Carnival's ships, filed suit against Carnival in state court asserting claims of Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 30104, negligence, unseaworthiness, and failure to provide adequate maintenance and cure. Plaintiff alleged that the physician chosen and paid by Carnival negligently performed his back surgery. Carnival removed to federal court. On appeal, plaintiff appealed the district court's order compelling arbitration of his claims under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (CREFAA), 9 U.S.C. 201-208. Plaintiff argued that his Jones Act claim did not fall within his employment contract ("Seafarer's Agreement") with Carnival and, therefore, was not within the scope of the contract's arbitration clause. The court concluded that the order compelling plaintiff to arbitrate his claims was "a final decision with respect to arbitration," and the court had appellate jurisdiction. The court also concluded that plaintiff's dispute with Carnival clearly arose out of or in connection with the Seafarer's Agreement and was subject to arbitration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order. View "Martinez v. Carnival Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. The court concluded that plaintiff's 2007 South Carolina conviction for the burglary of a dwelling was a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) where plaintiff failed to object to the presentence investigation report's statement that the conduct underlying his burglary conviction involved entry into the victim's residence. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court properly applied the sixteen-level enhancement under section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) and affirmed the forty-six month sentence. View "United States v. Ramirez-Flores" on Justia Law

Defendant, while incarcerated, participated in a fraudulent scheme to obtain tax refunds by using the personal information of other inmates. Defendant pleaded guilty to 41 of the 46 counts with which he was charged. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court should amend its written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement at sentencing that forfeited funds would be applied toward his restitution obligation. In light of the statutory framework governing restitution and forfeiture, the court held that a district court generally had no authority to offset a defendant's restitution obligation by the value of the forfeited property held by the government which was consistent with the approach taken by the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. Because the district court had no authority to offset defendant's restitution obligation by the amount of funds forfeited to the government, its oral pronouncement directing such was contrary to law. Therefore, defendant could not avail himself of the general rule that discrepancy between an oral pronouncement at sentencing and a written judgment was to be resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's written judgment. View "United States v. Joseph" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess and for possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. At issue was whether the admission of a certification of the Secretary of State to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction for prosecution of drug trafficking on the high seas violated defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him at trial. The court concluded that the pretrial admission of the certification did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the certification proved jurisdiction, as a diplomatic courtesy to a foreign nation, and did not prove an element of a defendant's culpability. The court also concluded that the pretrial determination of jurisdiction did not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendment; the district court did not err when it determined it had jurisdiction based on the certification of the Secretary of State; the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. 70501 et seq., is a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Felonies Clause; and defendant's conviction did not violate his right to due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Taxpayers, United States citizens claiming to be bona fide residents of the Virgin Islands, petitioned the Tax Court, challenging the IRS's deficiency notices. In consolidated appeals, the court reviewed the Tax Court's denial of the Virgin Islands' motion to intervene in Taxpayers' proceedings in the Tax Court. The court concluded that the Virgin Islands qualified for intervention of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and held that Rule 24(a)(2) applied in this instance. Because the court concluded that the Tax Court should have allowed the Virgin Islands to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2), the court did not reach the question of whether the Tax Court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2). Accordingly, the court remanded with instruction to grant the Virgin Islands intervention. View "Huff v. Commissioner of IRS, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of the pistol and convict defendant. The court concluded that a prior conviction under Alabama Code 13A-7-7, a statute that was non-generic and indivisible, could not qualify as a generic burglary under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction but vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law