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

The en banc court vacated defendant's convictions, concluding that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing a juror and the removal violated defendant's right under the Sixth Amendment to a unanimous jury verdict. The district court removed a juror who expressed, after the start of deliberations, that the Holy Spirit told him that defendant was not guilty on all charges, and concluded that the juror's statements about receiving divine guidance were categorically disqualifying.The en banc court concluded that the record establishes a substantial possibility that the juror was rendering proper jury service. The en banc court explained that a rigorous standard protects the rights of the accused to a unanimous jury verdict. Furthermore, there was a substantial possibility that the juror was fulfilling his duty to render a verdict based on the evidence and the law. In this case, the juror expressed a clear understanding of proper jury service; confirmed that understanding when he recounted to the judge the traditional role of a juror; and never gave any indication that he was refusing to consider the evidence or follow the law. Nor did the juror express any lack of faith in the justice system or admit he could not be fair. The record establishes that the juror repeatedly referred to the evidence in explaining his deliberative process, and his assurances were supported by other jurors. Accordingly, the en banc court remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The district court held on summary judgment that, under Eleventh Circuit precedent, federal maritime law requires strict compliance with captain and crew warranties in a marine insurance policy. The district court concluded that, because Ocean Reef breached those warranties, there was no coverage for the loss of its yacht under a policy issued by Travelers.The Eleventh Circuit applied Wilburn Boat Co. v. Firearm’s Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310, 316 (1955), and concluded that there does not exist entrenched federal maritime rules governing captain or crew warranties in this case. Therefore, Florida law applies to determine the effect of Ocean Reef's breaches. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Ocean Reef Charters LLC" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Eleventh Circuit considered a question of first impression: whether the district court has authority to remand a case based on a procedural defect in removal when (1) a motion to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is filed within 30 days of the notice of removal, but (2) a procedural defect is not raised until after the 30-day statutory time limit.The court concluded that 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) allows a district court to remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction or upon a timely motion to remand on the basis of a procedural defect. In this case, the district court's remand order is based on neither of those grounds. Rather, plaintiff untimely raised a procedural defect in removal, thus forfeiting that objection. Consequently, the district court had no authority to remand the case on that basis. The court vacated the order remanding the case to state court. View "Shipley v. Helping Hands Therapy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal based on lack of standing of his claims against the City under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that the district court erred in relying on the test articulated in Price v. City of Ocala, 375 F. Supp. 3d 1264 (M.D. Fla. 2019), to determine if plaintiff suffered an injury in fact. The court explained that Price is a district court opinion, and thus it does not constitute binding precedent. Even if the court were bound by it, Price is unhelpful here because it is fundamentally different from this case. The court also concluded that the district court erred in finding that plaintiff did not have standing. Rather, plaintiff has standing to bring his claim under Title II, as he adequately alleged a stigmatic injury. In this case, plaintiff, as an individual with a disability, was personally and directly subjected to discriminatory treatment when the City published videos on its website that he accessed but could not understand. Therefore, he suffered a concrete and particularized injury. View "Sierra v. City of Hallandale Beach" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Alabama Deputy Fire Marshal and several law enforcement officers, ATF Agents, and other unnamed officers, alleging claims related to a fire inspection the Fire Marshal performed on plaintiff's nightclub.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the ATF Agents and the entry of summary judgment for the Fire Marshal. The court concluded that the district court's reliance on the suppression-hearing transcript was proper and that it committed no error in finding that the Fire Marshal was entitled to qualified immunity. In this case, a reasonable officer in the Fire Marshal's position could have believed that he had plaintiff's effective consent to enter the club to conduct an inspection. Furthermore, the Fire Marshal was entitled to qualified immunity for his search of plaintiff's bedroom. The court also concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the individual-capacity claims against the ATF Agents because they were improperly served, and the official-capacity claims against them are barred by sovereign immunity. View "Fuqua v. Turner" on Justia Law

After a law enforcement reverse sting operation caught petitioner in the midst of an effort to commit armed robbery of a house he believed held the cocaine stash of a Colombian drug cartel, a jury convicted petitioner of both conspiring to use and using a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(o) and 924(c).The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion collaterally attacking his convictions. Petitioner claims that under United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), the only crime-of-violence offense that the jury could have relied on to predicate the challenged convictions -- conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery -- is not actually a crime of violence. However, the court concluded that, even though conspiracy commit Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence, his section 2255 motion still fails. The court explained that this is because in addition to the Hobbs Act conspiracy, the district court instructed the jury that it could predicate the challenged section 924(c) and (o) convictions on two related drug trafficking offenses, attempt and conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. Therefore, given the facts and circumstances presented at trial, the jury could not have relied on the invalid Hobbs Act conspiracy predicate without also relying on the drug trafficking offenses, each of which remain valid predicates. View "Foster v. United States" on Justia Law

This appeal consolidates seven separate cases that three related corporate entities, MSP, originally filed in Florida state court against seventeen insurance companies. The district court granted MSP's motions to remand but declined to order the insurance companies to pay MSP's attorney's fees and costs.The Eleventh Circuit concluded that it does not have jurisdiction over the cross-appeals brought by Travelers, Northland, and Owners insurance companies. In this case, the remand orders fall within the scope of 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) and are unreviewable. Therefore, the court dismissed the cross-appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying MSP's motions for attorney's fees and costs. The court held that it is not an abuse of discretion for a district judge to decline to award attorney's fees and costs under section 1447(c) simply because that judge or other district court judges within the same district have previously remanded in similar cases. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's orders. View "MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. The Hanover Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of firearms found in plain view during the search of a house. The court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's car and to conduct an investigatory Terry stop under the totality of the circumstances. In this case, the officers knew that a social security number associated with a fugitive had been used recently to connect a utility service at the house; they had a specific, articulable, objective basis for believing that the fugitive could be found at that location; and when the officers observed defendant leaving the house, it was in the pre-dawn hours, which gave the officers an objective, reasonable reasonable suspicion that any man leaving the house was either the fugitive, or as a resident of the house, may have known the fugitive and his whereabouts. The court also concluded that the officers did not unlawfully extend the stop, and that defendant voluntarily consented to the officers' search of the residence. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Zea" on Justia Law

28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(1) does not confer jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, over a taxpayer's civil action against the government solely for overpayment interest owed to the taxpayer.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over their standalone claim for overpayment interest allegedly owed to them by the government. Plaintiffs are victims of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme and seek to recoup their losses. They filed multiple claims with the IRS, subsequently received tentative refunds of approximately ten million dollars, and now seek interest on the tax overpayments for the tax years at issue. The Court of Federal Claims denied the government's motion to dismiss as moot after finding that it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claim because it was untimely under the Tucker Act. The Court of Federal Claims, however, transferred the case to the Southern District of Florida because it was not evident how the Southern District of Florida or this Court would address jurisdiction over a standalone claim for overpayment interest.Read in context of the entire statute, the court concluded that the "any sum" category of section 1346(a)(1) does not encompass standalone overpayment interest claims against the government and that under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over such standalone claims exceeding $10,000. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs' overpayment interest claim and properly dismissed their amended complaint. View "Paresky v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her husband filed suit against Ethicon and its parent company, Johnson & Johnson, in the Southern District of Florida for failure to warn of the adverse health consequences of an Artisyn YMesh implant. After defendants successfully moved for summary judgment, plaintiff and her husband appealed, asking the court to create a "financial bias" exception to the learned intermediary doctrine.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed and concluded that it was Erie bound to follow the decisions of the Florida courts. Without any indication from Florida's appellate courts that they would create a "financial bias" exception to the learned intermediary doctrine insofar as it applies to physicians, the court held that the learned intermediary doctrine is available and that, under the facts of this case, it plainly entitles defendants to summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim. In this case, the treating physician was both aware of the risks surrounding the mesh implant and stood by his decision to use it to treat plaintiff's prolapse. The court explained that, under Florida law, an inadequate warning could not be the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries and, therefore, the learned intermediary doctrine bars a failure-to-warn claim. View "Salinero v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law