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

Plaintiff, a minor at the time, embarked on a Royal Caribbean cruise where, on the first night of the cruise, a group of adult male passengers bought her multiple alcoholic drinks and steered her to a cabin where they assaulted and gang raped her. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Royal Caribbean was negligent in failing to warn passengers and prospective passengers of the danger of sexual assault on a cruise ship, and in failing to take action to prevent the physical assault, including the sexual assault, that plaintiff suffered. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.The Eleventh Circuit reversed and held that the complaint sufficiently alleged that because Royal Caribbean's crewmembers did nothing to prevent the large group of men from plying plaintiff with enough alcohol to incapacitate her and did nothing to stop those men from leading her away to a private cabin, Royal Caribbean breached the duty of ordinary care it owed her. Furthermore, but for Royal Caribbean's breach of its duties of care to plaintiff, she would not have been brutalized and gang raped. If the allegations are true, Royal Caribbean proximately caused the alleged injuries. Therefore, the complaint stated a negligence claim against Royal Caribbean. The court also held that the complaint sufficiently alleged that Royal Caribbean's failure to warn plaintiff and her parents of known dangers was a but-for cause of the harm plaintiff suffered. View "K.T. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the tax court's order denying taxpayer's motion to restrain collection to the extent it related to the gross valuation-misstatement penalty. At issue was whether, under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), a tax court presiding over partner-level deficiency proceedings has jurisdiction over a gross valuation-misstatement penalty previously determined to be applicable at the partnership level where the partnership was determined to be a "sham" and "lacking economic substance."The court held that the Internal Revenue Code, as in effect during the relevant time, applicable regulations, and Supreme Court precedent make clear that the valuation-misstatement penalty at issue here relates to an adjustment to a partnership item and, consequently, is explicitly excluded from the tax court's deficiency jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court held that the tax court presiding over partner-level deficiency proceedings does not have jurisdiction over gross valuation misstatement penalties imposed against a partnership previously determined to be a "sham" and "lacking economic substance." View "Highpoint Tower Technology Inc. v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that defendant demoted plaintiff because of his multiple sclerosis in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court weighed the balancing factors to determine whether an entity acts as an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity, and held that, when defendant demoted plaintiff, it did not act as an arm of the state and was thus not entitled to sovereign immunity. In this case, the Alabama Supreme Court previously held that a communications district was not an arm of the state; there was no evidence that the State of Alabama exerts any control over the particular function at issue here; where the entity derives its funds, did not support granting sovereign immunity; and Alabama would not be financially responsible for a judgment against defendant. View "McAdams v. The Jefferson County 911 Emergency Communications District, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 as to his Davis claim challenging his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) firearm conviction in Count 5. The court held that United States v. Davis announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to successive section 2255 movants like petitioner, and that Davis was not barred under the court's precedent in In re Baptiste.The court held that neither the Supreme Court nor this court has addressed whether "solicitation" of another to commit murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 373, qualifies as a crime of violence under only the residual clause or the elements clause or both clauses of section 924(c)(3). Therefore, petitioner has made a prima facie showing that his section 924(c) conviction in Count 5 may implicate section 924(c)'s residual clause and Davis. View "In Re: Wissam Hammoud" on Justia Law

After obtaining an unfavorable result in an arbitration proceeding, Crowley Maritime filed suit against its insurer, National Union, seeking reimbursement in legal defense fees paid on behalf of an employee of Crowley. The district court granted National Union's converted motion for summary judgment on grounds that Crowley failed to timely report the claim at issue in this appeal to National Union as required by the relevant insurance policy.Applying Florida law, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of National Union's converted motion for summary judgment, holding that the record supports the conclusion that Crowley failed to timely report the claim based on the affidavit as required by the policy. The court held that, with respect to the reporting period between April 16, 2008 and December 31, 2012, Crowley was bound by the arbitration panel's finding that Crowley had not reported a claim to National Union as required by the policy at that time; with respect to the reporting period beginning immediately after December 31, 2012 and running through the end of the discovery period on November 1, 2013, Crowley failed to report the claim based on the affidavit as required by section 7(a) of the policy; and Crowley has waived any arguments that either its February 2013 notice or its July 2015 notice should relate back to the April 2008 notice under section 7 of the policy. View "Crowley Maritime Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The FDIC, as receiver, filed suit against several of the Bank's former directors and officers, alleging that they were negligent and grossly negligent in approving ten risky loans. A jury found that the directors were negligent and the district court held that they were jointly and severally liable for the damages.The Eleventh Circuit held that Georgia's apportionment statute did not apply in this case, and the jury instructions neither misstated Georgia law nor misled the jury; there was an evidentiary basis for the jury to conclude that a director was negligent in his decision-making process for a loan even if he didn’t attend the approval meeting for that loan; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence related to the Great Recession because the district court was enforcing its earlier unchallenged ruling. View "Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Loudermilk" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit previously concluded that petitioner had made a prima facie showing that his prior convictions for resisting arrest and assault and battery—which had served as predicates for the enhancement of his federal sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)—no longer qualified as violent felonies under the ACCA in light of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Samuel Johnson v. United States that the ACCA's residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. After sentencing but during the pendency of petitioner's direct appeal, there were significant developments relevant to the issue of whether the residual clause was the sole basis for his ACCA enhancement.At issue in this appeal was when a claimant challenged his ACCA enhancement on direct appeal, whether the relevant time frame for this inquiry is limited to the sentencing hearing or if it extends through the claimant's direct appeal. The court held that, where a claimant challenged his ACCA enhancement on direct appeal, the relevant time frame to consider when determining whether the residual clause solely caused the enhancement of a claimant's sentence extends through direct appeal. In this case, the court held that petitioner carried his burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the residual clause, and only the residual clause, caused his sentence to be enhanced and that he no longer has three ACCA predicate convictions. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and remanded for resentencing. View "Weeks v. United States" on Justia Law

In this property insurance coverage dispute, the insurer appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment and coverage award to the landlord. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding the deductible was satisfied. In this case, the district court erred in determining that the Tenants and Neighbors Provision was ambiguous and concluding that it extended coverage under this property insurance policy for the landlords' attorneys' fees amount and the post-judgment interest amount. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment -- and an order declaring that the policy did not provide coverage to the landlord -- in favor of the insurer. View "Ace American Insurance Co. v. The Wattles Company" on Justia Law

Petitioner brought a third challenge to the TSA's airport scanner equipment using advanced imaging technology (AIT). Petitioner challenged the TSA's latest policies and orders that require certain airline passengers to pass through AIT scanners, eliminating for them the option of being screened by a physical pat-down.The Eleventh Circuit held that it was without jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's claims, because petitioner lacked the necessary standing to bring the petition. The court held that petitioner failed to establish that he suffered an injury in fact, that is, the invasion of a judicially cognizable interest that is concrete and particularized and actual and imminent. In this case, petitioner has never said that he was subjected to the mandatory TSA policy, before his petition or since then, even though he has made numerous filings since he lodged his petition for review containing substantial information about his travel patterns and his interactions with TSA. View "Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the city's red light ordinance, which permitted the installation and operation of cameras to enforce traffic-control-device violations at certain intersections. The district court dismissed the case based on lack of Article III standing.Although the Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs had standing to bring their damages claims, their constitutional claims must nonetheless be dismissed because they failed to sufficiently allege that they suffered a violation of their constitutional rights.The court held that the dismissal of plaintiffs' federal claims was warranted because the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that the ordinance imposed a criminal penalty without providing constitutionally sufficient procedural safeguards. However, the ordinance imposed a civil penalty, and thus the procedures prescribed by the ordinance were constitutionally sufficient. Because the court held that plaintiffs have not stated any federal claims, it declined to consider the state law claims. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with instructions. View "Worthy v. Phenix City" on Justia Law