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

Pruitt is a healthcare provider and Caradigm is in the business of delivering software solutions to healthcare providers. Caradigm filed suit against Pruitt for breach of contract, alleging that Pruitt had anticipatorily breached the parties' contract, entitling Caradigm to the contract's full value, plus interest and attorney's fees. On summary judgment, the district court decided that Pruitt had anticipatorily breached the contract and that Caradigm was thus entitled to the full value of the deal. After a four-day trial, a jury awarded Caradigm $11 million.The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not reversibly err in most of the ways that Pruitt claimed, and thus affirmed the awards of contract damages and fees, as well as the determination that Caradigm is entitled to recover interest on the damages award. However, the court held that the district court erred by compounding the interest, and vacated that award and remanded for the district court to calculate interest in simple terms. View "Caradigm USA LLC v. Pruithealth, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants Ruan and Couch, pain management physicians, appealed their convictions for charges related to their involvement in a health care fraud scheme. Defendants were convicted of conspiring to run a medical practice constituting a racketeering enterprise in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; conspiring to violate the Controlled Substances Act by dispensing Schedule II drugs, fentanyl, and Schedule III drugs outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose; conspiracies to commit health care fraud and mail or wire fraud; and conspiracies to receive kickbacks in relation to a Federal health care program. Ruan and Couch were individually convicted of multiple counts of substantive drug distribution in violation of the Controlled Substances Act and Ruan was convicted of a money laundering conspiracy and two counts of substantive money laundering.The court vacated defendants' convictions on Count 16 of the Superseding Indictment for conspiring to violate the Anti-Kickback statute based on their operation of their medical clinic’s in-house workers' compensation dispensary. In this case, the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that an insurance provider paid for prescriptions with federal funds or that federal monies otherwise passed through the clinic's workers' compensation dispensary. The court remanded for resentencing and affirmed defendants' remaining convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Xiulu Ruan" on Justia Law

Canal A Media and Erick Archila appealed the district court's dismissal of their amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, challenging the USCIS's decision to deny Canal A Media's petition for a work visa for Mr. Archila.The Eleventh Circuit reversed and held that the denial of Canal A Media's visa petition was final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because Canal A Media has gone as far as it can in obtaining administrative adjudication of the I-129 petition and neither plaintiff can displace that decision through Mr. Archila's removal proceedings. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to satisfy the APA finality requirement.The court also held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(9) and (g) do not bar plaintiffs' challenge to the visa petition denial. Section 1252(b)(9), commonly known as the "zipper clause," does not apply in this case where plaintiffs have not brought any challenge to Mr. Archila's removal proceedings. Section 1252(g) also does not apply because the I-129 petition is not a decision to commence proceedings, much less to adjudicate a case or execute a removal order. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Canal A Media Holding LLC v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

In United States v. Ross, No. 18-11679, 2020 WL 3445818 (11th Cir. June 24, 2020) (en banc), the full court unanimously overruled United States v. Sparks, 806 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2015), and held that a suspect's alleged abandonment of his privacy or possessory interest in the object of a search or seizure implicates only the merits of his Fourth Amendment challenge—not his Article III standing—and, accordingly, that if the government fails to argue abandonment, it waives the issue.The Eleventh Circuit applied the en banc court's holding here and held that the government waived its abandonment argument by failing to raise it in the district court. Therefore, the court assumed for purposes of its decision that defendant has Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the entry and sweep, which resulted in the seizure of the gun. The court also held that defendant's challenge to the initial entry and sweep failed on the merits. In this case, the officers had reason to believe that defendant was in the motel room, and they had authority to execute their arrests warrants, to conduct a protective sweep, and to seize the gun found in plain view. Finally, the court held that defendant has no Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the ensuing search of the room, during which officers discovered the drug-related evidence. Accordingly, the court reaffirmed the balance of its earlier decision. View "United States v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner's application to file a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3). The court held that petitioner failed to make, and cannot make, a prima facie showing that his Davis claim would succeed. In this case, the court must presume that when the jury found petitioner guilty of the 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) convictions, it followed the district court's instructions and predicated those findings on the two bank robbery charges and the jury necessarily found that petitioner committed the two robberies. Furthermore, bank robbery is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)'s elements clause.The court also held that petitioner's Rehaif claim failed to meet the statutory criteria for a second or successive application, because Rehaif did not announce a new rule of constitutional law and, even if it did, it has not been made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. View "In re: Michael Price" on Justia Law

After Costco terminated plaintiff, who has been deaf since birth, she filed suit in Florida state court for violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). After Costco removed the case to federal court, the case went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Costco on one count of wrongful termination, but against the company on plaintiff's failure-to-accommodate claim. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment to Costco for judgment as a matter of law on the failure-to-accommodate claim.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support plaintiff's failure-to-accommodate claim. In this case, plaintiff failed to point to a specific instance in which she needed an accommodation and was denied one. The court stated that it cannot hold that an employer fails to reasonably accommodate a deaf employee when it provide her with on-demand access to live sign-language interpreters at two, convenient locations within her place of work; when it goes further to provide on-site person interpreters for larger, group meetings; when it arranges a thorough training session on deaf culture, pursuant to the plaintiff's request; and when the plaintiff's general manager—the supervisor who was the sole subject of her sole complaint—resolves to improve his relationship with the plaintiff by attending multiple, one-on-one training sessions. View "D'Onofrio v. Costco Wholesale Corp." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to pursue their claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Plaintiffs alleged that collection letters were misleading and unfair in falsely suggesting that they could be sued or that the debt could be reported to credit-rating agencies. The court wrote that plaintiffs seek to recover for representations that they contend were misleading or unfair, but without proving even that they relied on the representations, much less that the reliance caused them any damages. View "Trichell v. Midland Credit Management, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's 92 month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the district court's imposition of a higher penalty was not outside its significant discretion.The court held that defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court adequately explained its chosen sentence by taking into account defendant's extensive record and emphasizing that defendant started a violent confrontation that led to death. Furthermore, the district court acknowledged that it had considered defendant's salutary post-offense conduct. The court also held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, giving greater weight to defendant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offense conduct while giving relatively less weight to his post-offense conduct. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the members of the Florida Board of Hearing Aid Specialists and the Secretary of the Florida Department of Health, each in their official capacities, alleging that three Florida statutes administered by defendants are preempted by federal law and/or violate plaintiff's due process rights. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissals for failure to state a claim pertaining to the Licensing Statute and Mail Order Ban. Because any infirmity in the Pre-Sale Testing Statute is not inextricably linked to the Licensing Statute, and because state licensing schemes are not preempted by 21 U.S.C. 360k(a)'s express preemption provision, the court held that plaintiff failed to state a claim that the Licensing Statute is preempted by federal law. Because the Mail Order Ban does not embed the Pre-Sale Testing Statute within it, and because the Mail Order Ban does not relate to the safety or effectiveness of the device, the court held that plaintiff failed to state a claim that the Mail Order Ban is preempted by federal law. The court reversed the district court's dismissal for lack of standing and held that plaintiff has standing to challenge the Pre-Sale Testing Statute. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Taylor v. Polhill" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motions for preliminary discovery in anticipation of an as-yet unfiled 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition. The court held that a defendant who has not yet filed a section 2255 motion to vacate a conviction or sentence is not entitled to discovery. The court wrote that its case law has long established that there is no legal basis for defendant to seek discovery from the district court before filing his motion to vacate his conviction. View "United States v. Rodriguez Cuya" on Justia Law