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

After DLM licensed its private jet booking website to Fly Victor in exchange for Fly Victor's agreement to invest in increasing traffic to the site and to share booking revenues with DLM, DLM filed suit against Fly Victor alleging that its directors and officers violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by defrauding DLM of the site revenues and laundering these ill-gotten gains through closely held firms.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case based on lack of personal jurisdiction and because the revenue sharing agreement's selection clauses mandated litigation of the dispute in an English court. The court explained that, for a statutory basis for personal jurisdiction, DLM relies only on a RICO provision that allows for service of process in any United States judicial district. However, the court concluded that this statute cannot provide personal jurisdiction because DLM did not serve any party within the United States. Rather, DLM only attempted service on defendants in a London office building. Furthermore, the court concluded that the forum selection clauses are enforceable, plainly apply to DLM's claims, and require dismissal in favor of an English forum. View "Don't Look Media LLC v. Fly Victor Limited" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of the 2017 data privacy breach of Equifax and its affiliates. Plaintiffs and Equifax eventually settled their dispute, the district court approved the settlement, certified the settlement class, awarded attorney's fees and expenses, and approved incentive awards for the class representatives. Several of the objectors appealed.After establishing jurisdiction, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings in full, with the exception of the incentive awards for the class representatives, which the court reversed and remanded. In this case, after awarding attorney's fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel, the district court approved incentive awards for the class representatives in order to compensate them for their services and the risks they incurred on behalf of the class. However, in Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, 975 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2020), a panel of this court held that incentive awards for class representatives are prohibited. On remand, the court instructed the district court to vacate the incentive award and to otherwise leave the settlement agreement intact. View "Shiyang Huang v. Equifax Inc." on Justia Law

The FDA filed suit against the Clinic, alleging that the Clinic's stem cell procedure violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. The Clinic offers a procedure, which purportedly treats all kinds of chronic conditions, in which they remove fat tissue from a patient, isolate the portion containing stem cells, and inject that portion back into the patient. The district court granted summary judgment for the FDA and enjoined the Clinic from offering its procedure until it can demonstrate to the FDA that its stem cell therapy is safe and effective.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Clinic's stem cell procedure does not fall within the "same surgical procedure" exception or the "361 HCT/P" exception to regulation under the FDCA. The procedure does not fall within the same surgical procedure exception because the biological material implanted into the patient is not the same as that removed. Furthermore, the procedure does not fall within the 361 HCT/P exception because the Clinic intends the stem cells to perform functions after the procedure beyond the basic functions the stem cells performed prior to the procedure. View "United States v. US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit concluded that, under Florida law, the policy exclusion barring coverage for claims arising out of an invasion of privacy unambiguously excludes coverage for claims alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) in which the complaint repeatedly alleges that defendants invaded the privacy of plaintiffs. The court explained that the invasion of privacy exclusion barred coverage for the class action here because the class complaint specifically alleged that iCan intentionally invaded the class members' privacy and sought recovery for those invasions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Liberty. View "Horn v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that petitioner failed to establish a nexus between the identity of her nuclear family and her asserted persecution. The court explained that petitioner is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because the gang that targeted her family did so only as a means to the end of obtaining funds, not because of any animus against her family. Furthermore, petitioner is ineligible for CAT relief because she has not established that any harm she will suffer if returned to her home country will come with at least the acquiescence of a government official. View "Sanchez-Castro v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Progressive in a third-party bad-faith action brought by plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that Progressive was collaterally estopped by a previous action against the driver of the vehicle that hit plaintiff's vehicle, permanently injuring her and killing her son, from arguing that it had no opportunity to settle her claims within policy limits.Applying Florida law, the court concluded that, at bottom, it agreed with the district court's endorsement of the magistrate judge's detailed and well-reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions that Progressive did not act in bad faith. In this case, the day that Progressive learned of the accident, it concluded that it should offer the full bodily-injury policy limits to plaintiff and her son's estate; while the driver's criminal proceedings were ongoing, Progressive stayed in touch with plaintiff, informing her that it was ready to settle at her discretion; and after receiving plaintiff's counsel's unilateral offer to settle, Progressive's claims examiner, in-house counsel, and outside counsel promptly moved to satisfy his time-limited demands. The court explained that, under Florida law, an overbroad release can create a factual dispute regarding bad faith, but the totality of the circumstances and Progressive's release did not support a finding that Progressive acted in bad faith. View "Eres v. Progressive American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order denying defendant's motion to modify a protective order. Defendant, who was sued for her alleged involvement in money laundering and market manipulation schemes, sought to modify a joint, stipulated protective order so that she could use certain confidential materials obtained from the Funds to defend herself against a possible Swiss prosecution for her role in the schemes. Before defendant could file her motion to modify, the Funds voluntarily dismissed their case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court concluded that the Funds' voluntary dismissal stripped the district court of jurisdiction to consider defendant's post-dismissal motion to modify. View "Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Limited v. Devine" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that a certificate of appealability is required when a federal prisoner obtains relief through a postconviction motion, 28 U.S.C. 2255, and appeals the decision to correct only the illegal sentence instead of performing a full resentencing. In this case, because defendant does not have a certificate of appealability, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider his argument that the district court erred by correcting his sentence instead of performing a full resentencing. Accordingly, the court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jursidiction. View "United States v. Cody" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of bribery under 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2) and other charges related to their involvement in concealing payments to Alabama Representative Oliver Robinson, through his charitable foundation in exchange for "advocacy" and "community outreach" intended to undermine the EPA's efforts to clean up a Superfund site. Defendants argued that the convictions should be overturned because no reasonable jury could find that the Representative committed an "official act," an element required for bribery under 18 U.S.C. 201.The Eleventh Circuit has previously held in United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010), that section 666 has no "official act" requirement and is distinguishable from section 201. Consistent with its sister circuits, the court held that McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), does not disturb the court's holding in McNair and the court did not read into section 666 limitations unsupported by the language. In this case, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of bribery under section 666(a)(2) where defendants each acted with a corrupt state of mind; Representative Robinson was an agent of Alabama; and defendants intended Representative Robinson to act "in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions" of the Alabama government. The court also rejected defendants' claims of error regarding the jury instructions. Finally, the court concluded that the district court's decisions not to sever the cases for trial or subsequent grant of a mistrial were not abuses of discretion. The court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Roberson" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release. Defendant contends that his conditions of hypertension, latent tuberculosis, and obesity, create a high risk he will fall seriously ill or die should he contract COVID-19 in the midst of the unprecedented global pandemic. The court concluded that the district court failed to demonstrate that it considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in denying relief. In this case, the district court's order includes nothing to suggest it considered, balanced, or weighed any of the factors supporting the grant of defendant's motion. Accordingly, the court remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "United States v. Cook" on Justia Law