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

Travelers moved to dismiss Postel's appeal of the district court's stay of Postel's lawsuit seeking payment from Travelers on a surety bond for work that it performed as a subcontractor. Postel brought its suit pursuant to the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. 3131 et seq. Travelers argued that Postel's appeal, which was not filed until fifty-five days after the district court's order, was untimely. Because Postel did not argue that the United States had any involvement in this case, but instead relied solely on the statutory requirement that it bring its Miller Act claim in the name of the United States, the court concluded that it was required to file its notice of appeal within thirty days under Rule 4(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, the court granted Travelers' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States for the use and benefit of Postel Erection Group, L.L.C., et al v. Travelers Casualty and Surety, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., to recover unpaid overtime wages. The jury found in favor of plaintiffs and the district court determined that plaintiffs were entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to their actual damages. Defendants subsequently appealed the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial. The court held that the district court was correct to deny defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law based on the in pari delicto doctrine; the district court did not err in giving the jury instructions; the district court did not commit evidentiary errors; the evidence of plaintiffs' overtime hours was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and the district court did not err in denying defendants' Rule 50 motion; defendants failed to satisfy their burden of showing that a certain employee was unavailable as a witness and the district court did not err by excluding the CEO's testimony as hearsay; and the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding the amounts defendants were required to withhold for payroll taxes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lamonica, et al v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals focus on a Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., visible emissions regulation promulgated by the State of Alabama and submitted to the EPA as a revision to Alabama's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The court held that the EPA's 2011 disapproval was unauthorized by the Act because the EPA failed to make the statutorily required error determination. The court rejected the EPA's reliance on its inherent authority and the court's remand order as authorization for the 2011 disapproval. Finally, the court dismissed challenges to the 2008 approval and affirmed the validity of the action. View "Alabama Environmental Council, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Sunbeam is one of Nielsen's customers in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area and uses Nielsen's ratings in operating a FOX-affiliated broadcast television channel in Miami. Sunbeam filed an antitrust suit, the claims principally stemmed from Nielsen's alleged improper and defective implementation of new ratings technology. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that Sunbeam lacked antitrust standing to pursue this lawsuit as it failed to establish that it was an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws. Without antitrust standing, the court did not reach the other issues on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc." on Justia Law

Southfield appealed the dismissal of its consolidated class-action securities fraud complaint against St. Joe and St. Joe's current and former officers for alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. Southfield argued that the district court erred in holding that they failed to adequately plead loss causation, actionable misrepresentation, or scienter, and also by denying their post-judgment motion to alter or amend. The court held that the complaint as framed by Southfield failed to adequately allege loss causation and the district court was therefore correct to dismiss Southfield's complaint for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "City of Southfield Fire & Police Retirement System v. Greene, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(h). The court concluded that it was unclear whether the BIA's current interpretation of section 212(h) - that an alien seeking section 212(h) relief who had not filed an adjustment of status application must remain "outside our borders while applying for relief" - overruled Matter of Sanchez or if the BIA's current interpretation essentially functioned as a continuation of its precedent under Sanchez, in which case the BIA would treat an alien satisfying the conditions of Sanchez as if the alien were "outside our borders while applying for relief." Therefore, the court remanded to the BIA for the purpose of allowing it to consider petitioner's case in light of the court's intervening decision in Poveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen. and to apply Sanchez to petitioner's case if the BIA finds it applicable. On remand, the BIA should also reconsider petitioner's case in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Judulang v. Holder. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lawal v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. At issue was whether petitioner's counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to argue, either during sentencing or on direct appeal, for a downward variance based on the substantial disparity between the Sentencing Guidelines' treatment of cocaine base and cocaine powder. The court held that petitioner's defense satisfied the constitutional requirements established in Strickland v. Washington and affirmed the judgment. View "Dell v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 180-month sentence for possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of at least three violent felonies. On appeal, defendant argued, inter alia, that he should not have been sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 942(e). The court held that, in light of defendant's past convictions for at least three violent felonies, the district court did not err in sentencing him under the ACCA. The court also held that the district court did not err by sentencing him to the mandatory minimum 15 years in prison. View "United States v. Gandy" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Alabama prisoner on death row, appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The record compelled a finding that the state used its peremptory strikes in a discriminatory manner and violated petitioner's right to Equal Protection as clearly established by Batson v. Kentucky. Because the court determined that petitioner was entitled to habeas relief based on his Batson claim, the court did not decide his other claims. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Adkins v. Warden, Holman CF, et al" on Justia Law

The State appealed from the district court's order enjoining it from requiring plaintiff to submit to a suspicionless drug test pursuant to Section 414.0652 of the Florida Statutes, as a condition for receipt of government-provided monetary assistance for which he was otherwise qualified. Plaintiff applied for financial assistance benefits for himself and his son through Florida's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction enjoining the State from enforcing the statute because the court concluded that the State had failed to establish a substantial special need to support its mandatory suspicionless drug testing of TANF recipients. View "Lebron v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Children and Families" on Justia Law