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

This case involved the allocation of tax refunds pursuant to a Tax Sharing Agreement (TSA) between two members of a Consolidated Group, the parent corporation (the Holding Company), and one of its subsidiaries (the Bank), the principal operating entity for the Consolidated Group. At issue on appeal was whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in declaring the tax refunds an asset of the bankruptcy estate. The court concluded that the relationship between the Holding Company and the Bank is not a debtor-creditor relationship; when the Holding Company received the tax refunds it held the funds intact - as if in escrow - for the benefit of the Bank and thus the remaining members of the Consolidated Group; the parties intended that the Holding Company would promptly forward the refunds to the Bank so that the Bank could, in turn, forward them on to the Group's members; and in the Bank's hands, the tax refunds occupied the same status as they did in the Holding Company's hands - they were tax refunds for distribution in accordance with the TSA. Accordingly, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's judgment and directed that court to vacate it decision declaring the tax refunds the property of the bankruptcy estate and to instruct the Holding Company to forward the funds held in escrow to the FDIC, as receiver, for distribution to the members of the Group in accordance with the TSA. View "Zucker, et al. v. FDIC" on Justia Law

Xena, a Cayman Islands corporation, filed suit against defendants claiming that defendants improperly and impermissibly secured loans made by MFM, incorporated in the Bahamas with its principal place of business in the Bahamas, to a commercial real estate hedge fund managed by MFM in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), giving them priority over Xena's shares in the funds. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, finding that it had no jurisdiction or authority to determine the priority of foreign parties entitled to, or payments made from, a foreign hedge fund. View "XENA Investments Ltd. v. Magnum Fund Mgmt. Ltd., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to manufacture and possess marijuana with the intent to distribute, as well as the substantive crime of manufacturing and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. The court concluded that defendant was aware before trial that the Government used GPS tracking, but did not challenge the tracking. Therefore, the court would not set aside defendant's waiver of his suppression claim. The court also concluded that counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a meritless suppression motion; the evidence was sufficient to support the sentencing enhancement for conspiracy involving more than 1,000 marijuana plants; the admission of translated transcripts of the wiretaps through a co-conspirator's testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's request to submit the forfeiture allegations to a jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Curbelo" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of malice murder and armed robbery, appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief. Petitioner raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and a violation of Brady v. Maryland. The court concluded that, in light of the evidence as a whole, the state court's determination, that petitioner was not prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel, was not objectively unreasonable. The court also concluded that petitioner's Brady claim was procedurally defaulted and petitioner failed to overcome the procedural default by showing cause and prejudice, or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Bishop v. Warden, GDCP" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for transferring a firearm to an out-of-state resident when neither he nor the buyer was a licensed firearms dealer. The court concluded that the record was completely bereft of any evidence that the buyer was, as a matter of objective fact, unlicensed at the time of the sale. The government's error in not submitting evidence of the buyer's licensure status was not harmless, and therefore, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal on defendant's behalf as to Count II of the indictment. View "United States v. Bernardo" on Justia Law

Employees of MCGP filed suit under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act of 1988 (WARN Act), 29 U.S.C. 2101-2109, alleging that MCGP thrice violated the WARN Act's requirement that an employer provide employees 60-days' notice prior to a plant closing or mass layoff. The court affirmed the district court's classification of the February and August layoffs as plant closings; affirmed the district court's determination that MCGP was not entitled to invoke the unforeseeable business circumstances defense; and reversed in part and remanded so that the district court could properly determine whether the employees that MCGP laid off in January were "affected employees" as a result of the February plant closing under the WARN Act, and were thus entitled to notice. View "Weekes-Walker, et al. v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted of committing murders during an attempted armed robbery and was sentenced to death. The Alabama appellate court held that petitioner's trial counsel was not ineffective in the investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence under Strickland v. Washington; the trial judge's override of the jury's life-sentence recommendation did not violate Ring v. Arizona; and the State's peremptory challenges did not violate Batson v. Kentucky. The court concluded that the state court's denial of petitioner's claims was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under section 2254(d). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lee v. Commissioner, AL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend that denial. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing regarding his claim of "mental retardation" under Atkins v. Virginia. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment denying the habeas petition and remanded for further proceedings. Because the court remanded as to this issue, the court need not resolve petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Burgess v. Commissioner, AL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), against her employer and subsequently settled the action without an attorney. Applying Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, the court concluded that the agreement between the parties was not made under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor, so it was valid only if the district court entered a "stipulated judgment" approving it. In this case, the district court did enter a judgment but it was not a stipulated one. Accordingly, the district court should not have granted the opposed motion to approve and enforce the settlement agreement and dismissed the complaint. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Chase under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1641(g), alleging that Chase did not comply with disclosure requirements when it did not inform them that it had been assigned an interest in their mortgage. The court concluded that the assignment was an "administrative convenience" within the meaning of section 1641(f) because the assignment allowed Chase to perform foreclosure, a requirement of servicing the loan. Accordingly, Chase was not subject to the disclosure requirements and the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Chase. View "Reed, Jr., et al. v. Chase Home Finance, LLC" on Justia Law