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

The Board challenged the district court's determination affirming the validity of a Department of Education regulation that required state and local agencies to reimburse parents and guardians for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of their children with disabilities. The court held that the Secretary of Education did not exceed its authority in promulgating 34 C.F.R. 300.502, providing parents the right to a publicly financed IEE and therefore, the district court did not err in requiring the Board to reimburse plaintiffs for the IEE that they obtained for their child. View "Phillip C., et al v. Jefferson County Board of Education" on Justia Law

This diversity action asked whether the property damage alleged in a California class action lawsuit brought by purchasers of homes built by Morrison was caused by an "occurrence" and therefore covered under the terms of Morrison's CGL policy with Gerling. Central to the case are questions of Georgia law, among them whether property damage can constitute an "occurrence" under a CGL policy where its effects are not felt on "other property." As this question is determinative of the case, and the single Supreme Court of Georgia case touching upon the matter failed to answer it, the court certified these questions for resolution. View "HDI-Gerling America Ins. v. Taylor Morrison Services, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved the City of Atlanta's compliance with two consent decrees which resolved complex, multi-party litigation arising from Atlanta's violation of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. The court held that the district court exceeded the scope of its authority by exercising jurisdiction over the state service delivery proceedings. The district court's order enjoining Fulton County and Sandy Springs from pursuing the state service delivery proceedings in state court was vacated and remanded for the district court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Atlanta's Amended Third-Party Complaint against Sandy Springs. View "City of Atlanta v. City of Sandy Springs, et al" on Justia Law

In these three consolidated appeals, the court must decide issues about the enforceability of German bonds issued during the period between World War I and World War II. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1330, 1302-1311, over the complaint against Germany filed by Sovereign Bonds regarding its Agra bonds issued in the territory that later became East Germany; all the bonds were subject to the 1953 Validation Treaty and must be validated before they could be enforced in American courts; the complaint filed by World Holdings to enforce its validated bonds was untimely; and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied discovery to Sovereign Bonds on the issue of validation. View "World Holdings, LLC v. Federal Republic of Germany" on Justia Law

Defendant, a federal prisoner convicted of a crack cocaine offense, appealed the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which revised the crack cocaine quantity tables in U.S.S.G. 2D1.1. The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion where defendant's offense level of 37 and initial guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment were not based on section 2D1.1's drug quantity tables, but on his status as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(b). More importantly, because defendant had two prior felony drug convictions, defendant was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum life sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Berry" on Justia Law

Allianceone appealed from the district court's denial of its motion to reconsider the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff in her lawsuit alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), Fla. Stat. 559.72. The court held, among other things, that there was no actual case or controversy left between Allianceone and plaintiff as to the section 1692g claim because the parties settled that claim between themselves. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Yunker v. Allianceone Receivables Mgmt." on Justia Law

Plaintiff contended that the pattern and practice delineated in Section 223.11(m)(2) of the Immigration Service Adjudicator's Field Manual violated the plain and unambiguous language of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA), 8 U.S.C. 1255. After reviewing the statutory language, the court concluded that the Immigration Service's pattern and practice of limiting the date of lawful permanent residence based on the date of marriage was contrary to the unambiguous language of the CAA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Silva-Hernandez v. USCIS, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Hospital. Plaintiffs suffered from severe hearing impairment and brought this suit against the Hospital under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and Florida state law, alleging a failure to communicate effectively. The court held that the Hospital's deliberate indifference was sufficient to establish intentional discrimination under section 504 and that actions of medical personnel, including doctors and nurses employed by the Hospital and involved in treating plaintiffs, could be attributed to the Hospital. Accordingly, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the Hospital on plaintiffs' claims under the Act and remanded for further proceedings. The court held, however, that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the Hospital on plaintiffs' state law claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. View "Liese, et al v. Indian River County Hospital Dist., et al" on Justia Law

Leon County appealed the dismissal of its complaint against the FHFA, it's acting director, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Leon County argued that by directing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks to refrain from purchasing mortgages encumbered with certain first-priority lien obligations, some of which were held by Leon County, the FHFA engaged in rulemaking without providing notice and comment pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 12 U.S.C. 4526(b). The court agreed with the district court that, under the specific facts in this case, the FHFA's directive not to purchase Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) encumbered mortgages was within the FHFA's broad powers as conservator. Accordingly, because 12 U.S.C. 4617(f) provided that "no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the [FHFA] as a conservator or receiver," the district court held that section 4617(f) barred Leon County's claims. View "Leon County Florida, et al v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Because petitioner has failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in gang violence in Honduras since he filed his previous motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Ruiz-Turcios v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law