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

Heather operated a health-coaching business called Constitution Nutrition. She started her business in California, which did not require a license. After moving to Florida in 2015, she continued to run her business—meeting online with most of her clients and meeting in person with two clients who lived in Florida. She described herself as a “holistic health coach” and not as a dietician. Heather tailored her health coaching to each client, which included dietary advice. After a complaint was filed against her and she paid $500.00 in fines and $254.09 in investigatory fees, Heather sued, claiming that Florida’s Dietetics and Nutrition Practice Act, which requires a license to practice as a dietician or nutritionist, violated her First Amendment free speech rights to communicate her opinions and advice on diet and nutrition to her clients. The district court granted the Florida Department of Health summary judgment.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, after considering the Supreme Court’s decision in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018). The Act “is a professional regulation with a merely incidental effect on protected speech,” and is constitutional under the First Amendment. View "Del Castillo v. Secretary, Florida Department of Health" on Justia Law

Zarate, a citizen of Mexico, was convicted of violating 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(B) for using a social security card that was not his. An IJ ruled that Zarate was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction under section 408(a)(7)(B) was for a “crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2); 1229b(b)(1)(c) but otherwise would have granted him that relief. The BIA dismissed his appeal, reasoning that section 408(a)(7)(B) requires intent to deceive.The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded, noting that the circuits are divided on the issue. While a conviction for a violation of section 408(a)(7)(B) may be a CIMT, the BIA must apply its two-pronged moral turpitude standard and decide whether the statute, under the categorical approach, involves conduct that is “reprehensible,” i.e., conduct that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.” Previous BIA decisions indicate that making a false statement or engaging in general deception is not necessarily the same thing as fraud; non-fraud offenses involving deception are not automatically CIMTs. View "Zarate v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

An online promotions team posted thousands of videos to persuade people to buy BitConnect Coin, a new cryptocurrency. BitConnect coin was not a sound investment; it was a Ponzi scheme. BitConnect’s original investors received “returns” from the money paid by new investors. The promoters were siphoning off money. At one point, BitConnect was bringing in around $10 million per week in investments from the United States.Two victims of the BitConnect collapse filed a putative class action, alleging that the promoters were liable under section 12 of the Securities Act for selling unregistered securities through their BitConnect videos, 15 U.S.C. 77l(a)(1); 77e(a)(1). The district court dismissed because the plaintiffs based their case on interactions with the promoters’ “publicly available content,” the plaintiffs had never received a “personal solicitation” from the promoters. The Eleventh Circuit reversed. Neither the Securities Act nor precedent imposes that kind of limitation. Solicitation has long occurred through mass communications, and online videos are merely a new way of doing an old thing. The Securities Act provides no free pass for online solicitations. View "Parks v. BitConnect International PLC" on Justia Law

Pincus’s vehicle was photographed running a red light in North Miami Beach. His notice of violation stated that he owed a statutory penalty of $158 and that if Pincus paid online or by phone, he would be charged an additional convenience fee. Pincus paid online with a credit card and was required to pay both the statutory penalty and the convenience fee. Pincus brought a putative class action against ATS, the vendor that operated the city’s red-light enforcement program. He alleged that several Florida statutes barred ATS from charging the convenience fee and that ATS was unjustly enriched by retaining the fee. The district court dismissed Pincus’s complaint,The Eleventh Circuit certified questions to the Supreme Court of Florida, which explained that a claim for unjust enrichment under Florida law required Pincus to allege that “it was inequitable for ATS to retain” the convenience fee. Even assuming Florida law barred ATS from charging the fee, the court concluded, it was “not inequitable” for ATS to retain the fee because Pincus received “value in exchange,” including not having to procure postage and a check or money order; being able to pay the balance over time; avoiding the risk of payment being delayed, stolen, or lost; being afforded more time because his payment would be received instantaneously; and receiving immediate confirmation of payment. The Eleventh Circuit, in response, affirmed the dismissal. View "Pincus v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

One of the mandatory conditions of Dennis’s probation for stealing social security funds was that she not commit any new state crimes. A police officer later investigated Dennis for theft of services after he suspected that she took food from a restaurant without paying. During a heated exchange with the officer, Dennis repeatedly disobeyed his commands. Based on this encounter, a probation officer provided written notice that Dennis had committed theft, battery, and felony obstruction.After a hearing, the district court found that Dennis committed misdemeanor obstruction and sentenced her to a term of supervised release. Dennis objected to that sentence on the ground that she had not been given written notice that her probation could be revoked for committing misdemeanor obstruction. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Because misdemeanor obstruction is a lesser included offense of felony obstruction, the inclusion of felony obstruction in the petition “thereby g[ave] notice to the defendant that [s]he may be [found guilty] on either charge.” The notice given to Dennis satisfied the requirements of “due process of law.” View "United States v. Dennis" on Justia Law

Secure intending to open an Illinois coal gasification plant, contracted with Siemens. Secure would buy gasification equipment on a payment plan; Siemens would provide updates and repairs to the equipment. The price of natural gas fell in 2009. Secure had to change its business plan and could not keep up with its payments to Siemens. In 2010, other clients discovered problems with Siemens’s gasification equipment. Siemens began implementing substantial modifications to its gasifiers. Because Secure's plant was not operational, Siemens left Secure out of the loop. In 2015, Siemens decided to exit the gasification market but promised to continue supporting its existing projects, including Secure’s, which had never been opened or used.In 2016, Secure sued Siemens, alleging fraud- and contract-based claims. Siemens, which was still owed 13 million dollars under the contract, filed a breach of contract counterclaim. Years into the litigation, the court denied Secure leave to amend its complaint, then excluded Secure’s expert witness for relying on an unreliable methodology, and granted Siemens summary judgment on Secure’s claims. Before trial on Siemens’s counterclaim, the court excluded Secure's evidence in support of its breach-of-contract affirmative defense. The jury returned a full verdict in Siemens’s favor. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Secure’s expert witness and its trial evidence and did not err in granting Siemens summary judgment. View "MidAmerica C2L Inc. v. Siemens Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

Williams pled guilty to distribution of crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a housing facility and school, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 860(a). He stipulated that the drug quantity attributable to him for calculating his guideline range was more than 500 milligrams but less than one gram of crack cocaine. In 2007, the district court sentenced Williams to 200 months. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Williams’s projected release date is August 4, 2022.In 2019, Williams moved to reduce his sentence. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion, rejecting an argument that Williams was eligible for relief under the First Step Act because his 21 U.S.C. 860(a) drug distribution conviction was a “covered offense” under section 404(a), given that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, modified section 860(a) by modifying the statute it cross-references, 21 U.S.C. 841(b). Williams was not sentenced for a covered offense because the penalties for his offense, defined by 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C) and 860(a), were not modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Enacted after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), creates a comprehensive remedial scheme that governs—and apportions liability for—oil-removal costs. OPA holds oil spillers strictly liable upfront for oil-removal expenses and allows them, if they meet certain requirements, to avail themselves of one of three liability defenses and to seek contribution from other culpable parties. The M/V SAVAGE VOYAGER was transporting oil through a Mississippi waterway when an accident at a boat lift— operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—caused a rupture in the SAVAGE VOYAGER’s hull, through which thousands of gallons of oil poured into the river.The owners of the vessel sued the United States, not under the OPA, but under the common-law admiralty regime. They cited the Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA), a 1920 law by which Congress generally waived sovereign immunity for most admiralty claims. The interplay between the OPA and the SAA was an issue of first impression in the federal courts. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the vessel owner’s claims for removal costs. OPA authorizes no claim against the government for oil-removal damages and OPA’s comprehensive remedial scheme displaced the SAA’s more general sovereign-immunity waiver. View "Savage Services Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant, a police sergeant who was at the wrong house because of imprecise dispatch directions, shot and killed William David Powell, who was innocent of any crime and standing in his driveway. Powell was holding a pistol because he and his wife thought they had heard a prowler. Powell's wife filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against defendant in his individual capacity, alleging that he violated her husband's constitutional right to be free from excessive force.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, concluding that plaintiff has not identified case law with materially similar facts or with a broad statement of principle giving defendant fair notice that he had to warn Powell at the earliest possible moment and before using deadly force. Therefore, she has not met her burden of showing qualified immunity is not appropriate. The court stated that plaintiff has not shown that defendant's actions were unreasonable for qualified immunity purposes. View "Powell v. Snook" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant based on qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated her right to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because there was no longer probable cause to support her detention when the perpetrator said, "[T]hat's not her." The court concluded that plaintiff cannot prove that defendant violated her constitutional rights for three reasons: first, plaintiff's continued detention was supported by probable cause; second, defendant was entitled to rely on a facially valid and lawfully obtained warrant; and third, defendant did not take an affirmative action to continue the prosecution. View "Washington v. Howard" on Justia Law