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

Wellness filed a putative class action in state court seeking a declaration that the form language Allstate used in the class members' personal injury protection insurance policies did not clearly and unambiguously indicate that payments would be limited to the levels provided for in Fla. Stat. 627.736(5)(a). The district court subsequently granted Wellness' motion to remand, concluding that the value of the declaratory relief was too speculative for purposes of satisfying the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2), amount-in-controversy requirement because Allstate had failed to show that declaratory judgment in this case necessarily triggered a flow of money to plaintiffs. The court concluded, however, that Allstate had carried its burden of establishing an amount in controversy that exceeded $5 million and Wellness did not provide any evidence to rebut Allstate's affidavit or controvert its calculations. Here, the amount that would be put at issue is the amount that the putative class members could be eligible to recover from Allstate in the event that they obtain declaratory relief. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "South Florida Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition, instead of a Chapter 7 petition, only so that his attorney could be paid in installments through the proposed Chapter 13 plan. The bankruptcy court found that debtor had not filed his petition or his proposed plan in "good faith," as required by 11 U.S.C. 1325(a)(3) and (a)(7). There was no evidence in this particular record revealing unique circumstances that would lead to the conclusion that it was in debtor's best interest to file under Chapter 13. After reviewing the record and the totality of the circumstances, the court could not say that the bankruptcy court's findings were clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of confirmation of debtor's Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. View "Brown v. Gore" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for drug and possession charges after they tried to rob a stash house based on information given to them from an undercover agent. The court concluded that the district court's supplemental jury instruction was a correct statement of the law regarding entrapment; the trial court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury to consider entrapment separately as to each count; the district court did not err in failing to grant Defendant Gustama's motion for judgment of acquittal as sufficient evidence supporting his convictions and neither he nor his co-defendants were entrapped as a matter of law; and Defendant Isnadin was not entitled to relief as this Circuit did not recognize derivative entrapment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Isnadin" on Justia Law

The Commission appealed the district court's order preliminarily enjoining him from enforcing several provisions of the Georgia Code as preempted by Section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1144(a). The court found that AHIP had standing to challenge Section 4, 5, and 6 of the Insurance Delivery Enhancement Act of 2011 (IDEA), O.C.G.A. 33-24-59.5; AHIP's suit was not barred by the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341; AHIP was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims where the challenged IDEA provisions were preempted by ERISA Section 514; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that AHIP met its burden to show irreparable injury and that the balance of equities weighed in favor of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "America's Health Ins. Plan v. Hudgens" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that he could experience unnecessary pain when the State of Florida executed him by lethal injection. The court concluded that plaintiff had not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim that the use of midazolam hydrochloride in Florida's current lethal injection protocol amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. In light of the district court's thorough and detailed credibility determinations and the extensive factual findings that flowed from them, the court concluded that plaintiff has not demonstrated that the use of midazolam in the 2013 Protocol created a substantial risk of serious harm. The court affirmed the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction and denied the motion for stay of execution. View "Chavez v. Florida SP Warden, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Florida inmate scheduled to be executed, appealed the district court's denial of his pro se request for the appointment of counsel. Through his attorney, plaintiff also sought a stay of execution pending disposition of his appeal and the appointment of the attorney as appellate counsel. Although plaintiff characterized his motion as a request for the appointment of federal counsel, and the district court treated it that way, plaintiff was effectively seeking the substitution of counsel. Unless and until an order is entered removing the attorney or substituting another counsel for him, he remains counsel for plaintiff in this and any future federal habeas proceedings. Because plaintiff could not bring any Martinez v. Ryan-based claims within the one-year statute of limitations for seeking federal habeas relief, and because binding precedent foreclosed any argument that Martinez could excuse or equitably toll that limitations period, the appointment of counsel to investigate and pursue such claims would be a wholly futile gesture that rendered 18 U.S.C. 3599's right to federally-funded counsel unavailable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and denied as moot plaintiff's application for a stay of execution pending the outcome of this appeal and for the appointment of counsel on appeal. View "Chavez v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and other checking account customers filed suit against the Bank for allegedly charging excessive overdraft fees in breach of their account agreement. The district court denied the Bank's renewed motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that state law applied when courts determined whether a valid arbitration agreement is in effect, and the Federal Arbitration Act's, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., presumption did not; under North Carolina law, the Bank Agreement was entirely superseded, and the arbitration agreement in that agreement therefore became ineffective; the district court properly looked to the PNC Agreement to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes; under North Carolina law, the PNC Agreement's silence was insufficient to form such an agreement; based on the terms of the agreement, the PNC Agreement applied retroactively; and because the agreement governing the dispute at hand did not permit the Bank to compel arbitration, the district court properly denied the motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Dasher v. RBC Bank (USA)" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit, inter alia, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting an Eighth Amendment claim against the Department and officials, alleging that they had acted with deliberate indifference by failing to provide him care for his retinopathy. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding that plaintiff had voluntarily, and with informed consent, signed a form refusing a consultation with a retinal specialist. The court concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning the validity and scope of the refusal form. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim, concluding that the district court will need to evaluate the claim on remand as to each individual defendant, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. The district court may also need to revisit its dismissal of the state law negligence claim. View "Kuhne v. FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her mortgage lender, Wells Fargo, alleging that Wells Fargo breached the mortgage-loan contract and violated extracontractual duties by requiring her to have more flood insurance than the amount set by federal law. At issue was whether a covenant included in all contracts for home mortgage loans guaranteed by the FHA unambiguously permitted mortgage lenders to require their borrowers to obtain flood insurance beyond the amount the agency required. The court concluded that the covenant unambiguously made the federally required flood-insurance amount the minimum, not the maximum, the borrower must have. Accordingly, plaintiff could not prevail on her claims against Wells Fargo and the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim. View "Feaz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for conspiracy to distribute. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conspiracy convictions; the court rejected Defendant Halcomb-Reeves' evidentiary challenges; and there was no discernible error in the prosecutor's closing argument and, if there was error, it was harmless because the record contained sufficient independent evidence of Defendant Moss's guilt. Finally, the district court did not err by attributing at least 150 kilograms of cocaine to Defendant Reeves at sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court remanded for the limited purpose of correcting the scrivener's errors in Defendant Reeve's written judgment. View "United States v. Reeves, et al." on Justia Law