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

Plaintiffs, relatives of eight Bolivian civilians killed in 2003 during a period of civil crisis in Bolivia, filed suit under the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA) against the former President of Bolivia and the former Defense Minister of Bolivia for the extrajudicial killings and wrongful deaths of their family members based on their alleged conduct in perpetuating the crisis. After the jury rendered its verdict, the district court granted defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the TVPA claims.The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court conflated the standard for an extrajudicial killing with the theory of liability tying defendants to the decedents' deaths. The court also held that the evidence of deaths caused by a soldier acting under orders to use excessive or indiscriminate force could provide a legally sufficient foundation to support a TVPA claim. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to determine, in the first instance and under the correct standard, whether plaintiffs put forth sufficient evidence to show that the deaths were extrajudicial killings, and, if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to hold defendants liable for such killings under the command-responsibility doctrine. In regard to the wrongful-death claims, the court held that the district court erroneously admitted the State Department cables. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for a new trial on the wrongful-death claims. View "Rojas Mamani v. Sanchez De Lozada Sanchez Bustamante" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for forcibly assaulting, intimidating, or interfering with a federal employee while using a firearm; forcibly resisting or opposing federal employees while using a firearm; and using, carrying, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to the offenses in the first two counts. Defendant's charges stemmed from an incident where he went to a Veterans Affairs clinic with two firearms and ammunition to confront his psychiatrist.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not holding additional competency hearings before the trial and the sentencing of defendant after it previously had his competency evaluated and found him competent. In this case, the expert opinion that defendant was competent, his evident and continued understanding of the proceedings, and his ability to consult with his counsel and assist his defense establish that no bona fide doubt about his competency arose after the district court found him competent. View "United States v. Cometa" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the evidence officers found in an investigatory stop and the statements he made to the officers. In this case, the officers saw defendant and another individual at 1:00 a.m. in a car that was parked in the front yard of a home; suspecting that the men might be trying to steal the car, the officers parked near it and approached defendant, who was in the driver's seat; when defendant opened the door, an officer immediately smelled marijuana; and an ensuing search of the car revealed ammunition and firearms.The court held that the officers did not violate defendant's right to be free from unreasonable seizures because defendant's interactions with the officers was an initially consensual encounter that did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. The court stated that a reasonable person in defendant's position would have felt free to leave. Here, the officers parked alongside the car with enough space for him to drive away. When the officers approached defendant to speak to him, they did not convey that defendant was required to comply. Defendant's other arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. Finally, the court noted that, although the presence of multiple officers and the age and race of a suspect may be relevant factors, the totality of the circumstances establish that this encounter was not coercive. View "United States v. Knights" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and defendant's conviction of 67 counts out of a 76 count indictment broadly alleging that he operated a multi-year scheme to defraud Medicare. Defendant raised numerous issues on appeal.The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to give defendant's proposed jury instruction and that any alleged error would have been harmless. The court also held that the district court was well within its discretion in allowing the introduction of summary charts comparing defendant's billing to peer physicians. The court rejected defendant's miscellaneous arguments concerning his trial and held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions on all counts. The court also rejected defendant's claims for a new trial under Brady and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. Finally, the court held that defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable where the district court did not clearly err in calculating the loss amount; the district court did not clearly err in reaching its final loss determination; and the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Melgen" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of capital murder for killing a DEA special agent. The court agreed with the district court that the 31 claims in the petition are time-barred and that the extraordinary remedy of equitable tolling cannot excuse the simple negligence of an attorney. In this case, petitioner alleged that his state petition was not properly filed because his attorneys neither paid the filing fee nor filed a motion to proceed without paying the fee until more than one year after his conviction had become final. Petitioner further alleged that counsel received misinformation from the state court clerk's office and thus the federal limitations period should be equitably tolled.The court also held that, although petitioner's Atkins claim was timely, it failed on the merits because the state court's determination that petitioner failed to demonstrate either significant subaverage intellectual functioning or significant deficits in adaptive functioning was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. View "Clemons v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

AEGIS filed suit alleging that it does not have a duty to defend or indemnify its insured ECI in an underlying state court action brought by a former tenant against ECI. In the underlying action, the tenant alleged that ECI wrongfully withheld the security deposits of current and former tenants in violation of Georgia's security deposit law.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of AEGIS, holding that AEGIS has a duty to defend ECI in the underlying state court lawsuit against it because that action and certain relief sought, if proved, would constitute a covered "Loss" under the insurance policy. Although an award of the allegedly wrongfully withheld security deposit would not constitute a "Loss" under the policy, the court explained that any award of attorney's fees that ECI might become obligated to pay as part of the judgment in the underlying litigation would also fall within the policy's definition of "Loss." The court held that any award of attorney's fees under Georgia's security deposit law could constitute a potential "Loss" under the policy, and thus AEGIS maintains a duty to defend ECI. The court declined to offer any opinion as to whether AEGIS, in addition to its duty to defend, has any duty to indemnify ECI. View "AEGIS Electric & Gas International Services Ltd. v. ECI Management LLC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for three counts of Hobbs Act robbery, one count of carjacking, and four counts of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of those crimes of violence. The court rejected defendant's evidentiary claims of error, holding that the admission of eyewitness identification did not violate due process and there was no abuse of discretion in admitting a music video of defendant's rap song.In regard to defendant's conviction for Hobbs Act robbery, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendant's substantively incorrect jury instruction and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant's robbery affected interstate commerce. The court also held that Section 403 of the First Step Act does not apply to defendant's offenses, and thus 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(C) required the district court to impose consecutive 25-year minimum sentences for defendant's convictions on Counts Four, Six, and Eight. Finally, the court held that defendant's 1,105-month sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment for being grossly disproportionate in light of his crime and was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

After the Medical Center suspended plaintiff's medical privileges, plaintiff filed suit against the Medical Center, an injunction against the suspension, and a declaration that the Health Care Quality Improvement Act provided no immunity from damages to the Medical Center.The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff contends only that federal question jurisdiction exists over his suit, but a request for declaratory relief that a federal law does not entitle the opposing party to a defense ordinarily does not raise a federal question under 28 U.S.C.1331. The court explained that, because the Declaratory Judgment Act does not enlarge the court's jurisdiction, plaintiff must still assert an underlying ground for federal court jurisdiction. In this case, plaintiff's complaint does not establish that the Medical Center could file a coercive action under federal law. Furthermore, a plaintiff cannot create federal question jurisdiction by seeking a declaration that a federal defense does not protect the defendant. Therefore, plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment does not establish federal question jurisdiction. View "Patel v. Hamilton Medical Center, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted rehearing en banc and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to plaintiff's retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The court first held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Kia's stated reason for firing her -- solicitation of another employee to sue the company -- was a pretext to mask a retaliatory motive, and thus she has necessarily failed to show that a reasonable jury could find that but for the filing of her EEOC charge she would not have been fired.The court also held that an employee's oppositional conduct under Title VII is not protected if the means by which the employee has chosen to express her opposition so interferes with the performance of her job that it renders her ineffective in the position for which she is employed. In this case, Kia held a good faith belief that plaintiff had abandoned her responsibility to try to resolve an employee's dispute without litigation when she instead actively solicited a complaining employee to sue the company and provided the employee with the name of an attorney to use; Kia determined it could no longer keep her as its Manager of Team Relations, the department to which unhappy employees were sent to air their complaints; and Kia fired plaintiff because she chose to act in a way that conflicted with the core objectives of her sensitive and highly important position. View "Gogel v. KIA Motors Manufacturing of Georgia, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, aggrieved distributors, filed a putative class action alleging that Herbalife and the top distributors who manage the "Circle of Success" events violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by conducting the affairs of a racketeering enterprise and by conspiring to do so. The district court denied Herbalife's motion to compel arbitration of the aggrieved distributors' claims against the top distributors and denied the motion to transfer those claims to the Central District of California.The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly denied the top distributors' motion to compel arbitration, because none of the top distributors is a party to any of the aggrieved distributors' agreements and thus they cannot invoke the agreements' arbitration clauses; the district court was correct to resolve the motion to compel arbitration instead of immediately sending it to an arbitrator; and the district court correctly declined to apply equitable estoppel to compel arbitration of the aggrieved distributors' claims against the top distributors. Finally, the court held that it is without jurisdiction to review whether the district court erred in denying the motion to transfer venue. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "Lavigne v. Herbalife, Ltd." on Justia Law