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

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's order compelling arbitration and dismissing their complaint filed against defendants. At issue was whether the arbitration agreement, which waived an employee's ability to bring a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The court concluded that, after examining the FLSA's text, legislative history, purposes, and Supreme Court precedent, it discerned no "contrary congressional command" that precluded the enforcement of plaintiffs' Arbitration Agreements and their collective action waivers. The court concluded that plaintiffs' reliance on the Supreme Court's 1945 decision in Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil was materially distinguishable from this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Walthour, et al. v. Chipio Windshield Repair, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the City's Ordinance No. 2886-12, which generally prohibits targeted picketing within 50 feet of a residential dwelling. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of the City's motion to dismiss. At issue are sections 62-79 and 62-77. The court concluded that the Ordinance's ban on targeted picketing, section 62-79, was content-neutral, furthered a significant government interest, was narrowly tailored, and left open ample alternate channels for speech. Therefore, section 62-79 was facially constitutional and the district court dismissed plaintiff's challenge as to section 62-79. The court concluded however, that section 62-77 granted private citizens unbridled discretion to invoke the City's power to regulate speech in public fora abutting private residences. Accordingly, the court concluded that the loitering provision was facially unconstitutional and invalid. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Bell, et al. v. City of Winter Park, FL, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2615, alleging that defendants wrongfully denied his request for eleven weeks of vacation time and terminated his employment. At trial, the jury found that plaintiff was not terminated because he requested leave, but nevertheless awarded him $200,000 in damages. The court concluded that the district court erred by denying defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on both plaintiff's claims because plaintiff was not eligible for leave under the FMLA where plaintiff admitted that his leave was not for a period of incapacity. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to vacate its order awarding attorney fees and to enter judgment in favor of defendants. View "Hurley v. Kent of Naples, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to death. The district court later granted petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in part and vacated his sentence only. The court concluded that the state habeas court's rejection of petitioner's ineffective-assistance claims were not an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington where the state habeas court did not unreasonably determine that petitioner suffered no prejudice from his counsel's failure to discover mitigating background and mental health evidence, especially in light of the substantial aggravating circumstances that would also have been revealed. Further, petitioner had not shown that the Georgia Supreme Court unreasonably applied Griffin v. California or any other Supreme Court precedent in concluding that the prosecutor's closing argument did not violate petitioner's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. View "Jones v. GDCP Warden" on Justia Law

Petitioner and her husband, natives and citizens of China, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and her husband's application for asylum and withholding of deportation. The court concluded that petitioner and her husband failed to show that the IJ and BIA erred in determining that the 2006 Tingjian Document- which ordered the sterilization of either petitioner or her husband when they returned to China - was unauthenticated, and therefore, the IJ and BIA did not err in giving it little or no weight; substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that petitioner failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution where the BIA distinguished between U.S.-born and Chinese-born children for the purposes of enforcing China's family planning policy; and the court could not say that the record compelled a conclusion that there was a reasonable possibility that petitioner would face economic persecution if she returned to China. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Wu v. US Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his motions for discovery and leave to amend his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as well as the district court's determination that the U.S. Parole Commission did not violate the mandate handed down by the court in Bowers v. Keller. The court concluded that the district court's decision to deny leave to amend was informed largely by its overly narrow interpretation of the court's mandate. The district court also noted that the habeas petition was already "long and complicated." Neither explanation amounted to a "substantial reason" for denying a motion to amend. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying petitioner leave to amend. The court reversed and remanded on that ground, but affirmed on all other grounds. View "Bowers, Jr. v. U.S. Parole Commission, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute drugs, conspiracy to launder money, and possession with intent to distribute at least one kilogram of heroin. At issue on appeal was whether the district court misapplied the sentencing guidelines by using defendant's conduct in the underlying drug conspiracy to impose a role enhancement when calculating his adjusted offense level for money laundering under U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(a)(1). The court concluded that the district court mistakenly considered defendant's role in the drug conspiracy that generated the dirty money. Consequently, defendant received a higher adjusted offense level and guidelines range than he might have received if the application note to section 2S1.1 had been followed. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Salgado" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for the strangulation murder of a thirteen-year-old girl, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that evidence of a rejected plea offer for a lesser sentence, like evidence of innocence or evidence of the geographical location of the crime, was not a mitigating circumstance because it shed no light on a defendant's character, background, or the circumstances of his crime; the Constitution did not mandate the admission of rejected plea offers as relevant mitigating evidence at sentencing; and, as a result, petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas relief on his Eighth Amendment claim. Finally, given the significant aggravating circumstances involved in his offense and found by the trial court, the court could not say that no fairminded jurists could agree with the Florida Supreme Court's determination that there was no reasonable likelihood of a lesser sentence had counsel obtained and presented the available evidence of brain damage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of petitioner's section 2254 petition. View "Hitchcock v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court granted petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability with regard to two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that the state supreme court correctly found that trial counsel's failure to engage the services of a forensic pathologist did not prejudice petitioner because the likelihood of a different result was not substantial and that the state supreme court reasonably determined that counsel did not perform deficiently during the sentencing phase by focusing on the residual doubt theory instead of focusing solely on rebutting the State's evidence in support of the armed robbery aggravating factor. Accordingly, the district court correctly rejected petitioner's claims and the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Terrell v. GDCP Warden" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. 1595, alleging that he engaged in for-profit "sex tourism" in the Amazon River Basin through his boat touring company, Wet-A-Line tours. Because of ongoing U.S. investigations into defendant's conduct, plaintiffs did not oppose the entry of a stay under section 1595(b). Almost a year later, plaintiffs moved to lift the stay based on a perceived lack of prosecution by the U.S. government. Ultimately, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to lift the court's prior stay of the civil action. Defendants brought an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order lifting the stay. The court concluded that an order lifting a stay was not a final decision that was appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Because the collateral order doctrine did not extend to orders lifting stays of section 1595 cases, the court dismissed defendants' interlocutory appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Plaintiff A, et al. v. Schair, et al." on Justia Law