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

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of her minor child, filed suit alleging that Wells Fargo violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991's (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), prohibition on autodialing cell phones without the express consent of the called party. Wells Fargo had called the cell phone number used by the child to collect a debt from a former customer who had listed the phone number on a Wells Fargo account application. Wells Fargo was unaware that the cell phone number was no longer assigned to the former customer and the former customer never revoked his consent or requested that Wells Fargo cease calling the number. The court concluded that "called party," for purposes of section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) means the subscriber to the cell phone service or user of the cell phone called. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment in plaintiff's favor. View "Breslow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

This case is one of many "clawback" actions initiated by the Receiver to recover profits from investors in a Ponzi scheme run by Arthur Nadel. The Lee Defendants appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Receiver on the Receiver's complaint under Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (FUFTA), Fla. Stat. 726.101 et seq. The receiver appealed the denial of prejudgment interest on the profits Lee was ordered to return to the receivership entities. Since the undisputed facts show that Nadel's transfers to the Lee Defendants satisfy all the elements of FUFTA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Receiver is due to be affirmed as is the judgment for the Receiver and against the Lee Defendants in the amount of $935,631.51. The court reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to apply the factors in Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. v. City of N. Miami, to determine whether equitable considerations justify denying or reducing a prejudgment interest award in light of Florida's general rule that prejudgment interest is an element of pecuniary damages. View "Wiand v. Lee, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Regions alleging that Regions settled a check presented by them at less than par in violation of Florida Statute 655.85 (Counts I and II). Plaintiffs also claimed that Regions was unjustly enriched when it settled their check at less than par (Counts III and IV). Under section 655.85, a financial institution may not settle any check drawn on it otherwise than at par. The court concluded that, because federal law preempted section 655.85 with respect to national banks, by operation of 12 U.S.C. 1831(a)(j)(1), so too does it preempt section 655.85 with respect to Regions, an out-of-state bank. And because plaintiffs have premised their unjust enrichment claims on the same facts as they lay out in Counts I and II, Counts III and IV are similarly preempted. View "Pereira, et al. v. Regions Bank" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to knowingly receiving 481 counterfeit U.S. Postal Money Orders from a foreign country with the intent to pass and publish these same counterfeit money orders as true, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 473. On appeal, defendant appealed her conviction and sentence, contending that her indictment was defective because it did not expressly allege the mens rea element of the section 473 offense. Because even assuming that defendant's indictment omitted a required element of the offense and was defective, the court agreed with the government that this type of indictment defect was not jurisdictional and was waived by defendant's guilty plea. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendants Flanders and Callum appealed their convictions and sentences for multiple counts of inducing women to engage in sex trafficking through fraud and of benefiting from that scheme. Flanders was also convicted of distributing a controlled substance, which he used to impair the victims' judgments such that they would participate in the filming of pornographic videos. The court concluded that Flanders was not prejudiced by the indictment's citation error; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of all counts; the court rejected Flanders' argument of prosecutorial misconduct and affirmed the district court's denial of Flanders' motion for disclosure of the grand jury transcripts and materials; the court rejected Flanders' claims of evidentiary errors; defendants' right to a public trial was not violated by the partial closure of the courtroom; there was no Double Jeopardy violation; defendants' life sentences were substantively reasonable; Flanders' life sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment; the court declined to address the merits of Flanders' claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; and Flanders' pro se appeal of the Final Order of Forfeiture was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Flanders, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, G4S, on his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1) and 2000e-3(a), and 42 U.S.C. 1981. Count I of the complaint alleged that G4S discriminated against plaintiff based on his national origin and Count III alleged that G4S discriminated against him because of his race. Counts II and IV alleged that G4S terminated plaintiff's employment because he filed a complaint of discrimination with its Human Resources department. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on Counts II and IV but vacated its judgment on Counts I and III. The court remanded for the district court to consider whether Counts I and III presented claims sufficient to withstand summary judgment where the district court should bear in mind that those counts asserted the "status-based" category of discrimination prohibited by Title VII. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. View "Barthelus v. G4S Government Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. This case arose out of a complex scheme designed to defraud investors through a group of hedge funds called the Lancer Fund. The court affirmed defendant's conviction; affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for a new trial; but vacated defendant's sentence because the district court erred when it enhanced defendant's sentence and ordered restitution based on the losses from Morgan Stanley's investment. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Isaacson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for eight counts of child sex trafficking, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1591; one count of conspiring to commit child sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1594(c); and another count of producing child pornography. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his operation of a brothel involving minor girls in his home. The court rejected defendant's constitutional challenges to section 1591 and 1594(c); the district court did not err, much less plainly err, in instructing the jury and did not constructively amend the indictment as to the first nine convictions; and defendant's life sentence was reasonable and did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mozie" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming that police officers' conduct in entering his house without a warrant and then arresting him for punching an officer infringed his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the district court properly denied the officers qualified immunity for entering plaintiff's residence without a warrant or anything remotely approaching reasonable suspicion. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in denying the officers' motions to dismiss the owner's claim for unlawful arrest where the officers' arrest of plaintiff after he punched the officer could not be considered a violation of his Fourth Amendment right not to be seized without probable cause. View "Morris v. Bower" on Justia Law

Defendants, three brothers, appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States and to defraud the United States, and unlawful procurement of citizenship or naturalization - all based on marriage fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants on all counts; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendants' three injury instructions, which they describe as "theory of defense" instructions, because defendants did not present weak, insufficient, or inconsistent evidence of a conspiracy solely with a government agent, entrapment or a perjury trap to support their requested instructions; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for a mistrial based on the testimony of a government witness because the government used her testimony to elicit evidence of false statements and facts tending to show marriage fraud. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United Statees v. Chahla" on Justia Law