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

Jordan Pulido developed an online relationship with a 14-year-old Croatian girl, I.G., and, with the help of his father, Roberto Jimenez, traveled to Croatia to have sex with her. They later brought her to the United States, where Pulido continued to have sex with her. Pulido was indicted on multiple counts, including using the internet to entice a minor, traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, and transporting a minor for sexual activity. Jimenez was indicted for conspiring to transport a minor for sexual activity.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Pulido's pre-trial motions to dismiss the indictment, suppress evidence, and exclude testimony. Both defendants were convicted on all counts after a nine-day trial. Post-trial motions for acquittal, a new trial, and a mistrial were also denied. Jimenez received sentence enhancements for exercising undue influence and having custody or supervisory control over I.G.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions on most counts but vacated Pulido's conviction on the enticement count, finding the indictment duplicitous. The court held that the enticement count was not harmless and remanded for resentencing. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Pulido's motion to suppress evidence from his electronic devices, holding that the border search exception applied. Additionally, the court found no fundamental unfairness in the translation irregularities during I.G.'s mother's testimony.For Jimenez, the court affirmed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, finding sufficient evidence of his intent to transport I.G. for sexual activity. The court also upheld the denial of his motion for a mistrial based on Agent Garcia's testimony about his immigration status, concluding that the curative instruction mitigated any potential prejudice. Finally, the court affirmed the application of the sentencing enhancements for undue influence and custody or supervisory control. View "U.S. v. Pulido" on Justia Law

Sara Watts, an African American woman, sued her former homeowners’ association, Joggers Run Property Owners Association (HOA), alleging racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Civil Rights Act. Watts claimed the HOA interfered with her property enjoyment through unwarranted citations, restricted access to amenities, and discriminatory treatment as a former HOA board member. She cited provisions from the FHA (42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b), 3617) and the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Watts' claims, ruling that the FHA did not cover discriminatory conduct occurring after the purchase of her home and that Watts failed to specify the contractual terms the HOA allegedly violated. The court found her allegations insufficient to support claims under the FHA and the Civil Rights Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Watts presented plausible claims under the FHA and the Civil Rights Act. It found that the FHA's language is broad and inclusive, prohibiting a wide range of discriminatory conduct related to housing. The court concluded that the HOA's actions, including restricted access to amenities and selective enforcement of rules, fell within the scope of the FHA. The court also determined that Watts sufficiently alleged intentional racial discrimination causing contractual injury under Section 1981 and that the HOA's actions violated her right to use property on an equal basis with White citizens under Section 1982.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Watts v. Joggers Run Property Owners Association, Inc." on Justia Law

Pemco and Boeing entered into a contractual "teaming arrangement" to bid for a 2008 Air Force contract, which included a master agreement, a work share agreement, and a non-disclosure agreement. The relationship soured, leading Pemco to sue Boeing for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation under the Missouri Trade Secrets Act. The district court initially dismissed the trade secrets claim as time-barred but allowed the breach of contract claims to proceed, resulting in a jury awarding Pemco $2,132,038 in direct damages.On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the trade secrets claim, holding that the Missouri statute of limitations applied, not Alabama's. After remand, Pemco filed a new complaint asserting only the trade secrets claim. The district court dismissed this claim, concluding that the contractual limitation of liability provision barred all additional damages since Pemco had already recovered the maximum amount allowed for breach of contract.The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and held that the limitation of liability provision in the master agreement applies to Pemco’s trade secrets claim, barring most categories of damages, including incidental, punitive, and consequential damages. However, the court found that the provision does not bar recovery for unjust enrichment, which Pemco had alleged. The court noted that unjust enrichment damages are distinct from the direct, out-of-pocket damages Pemco had already recovered and are not categorically barred by the limitation provision.The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Pemco’s trade secrets claim and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Pemco to pursue recovery based on Boeing’s alleged unjust enrichment. The court denied Pemco’s request to reassign the case to a different district judge. View "Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc. v. Boeing Company, The" on Justia Law

The case involves an FBI investigation into Jeffrey Alan Siegmeister, the State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida, and Marion Michael O'Steen, a defense attorney. The investigation began after Andy Tong, who was being prosecuted by Siegmeister, informed the FBI that O'Steen would have to pay Siegmeister $50,000 for a favorable case disposition. The investigation concluded with a grand jury indictment against Siegmeister and O'Steen, charging them with multiple counts, including conspiracy to engage in bribery and extortion.In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Siegmeister entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to several counts, including conspiracy and bribery. O'Steen stood trial on four counts. The jury found O'Steen not guilty on Counts One and Two but guilty on Counts Three and Four. The District Court sentenced O'Steen to concurrent prison terms of 44 months, followed by supervised release, and ordered him to pay fines and restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the jury instructions on Count Three were flawed, as they allowed for a conviction based on an incorrect legal theory. The court also determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove that O'Steen knew of the fifteen-day reporting requirement for filing Form 8300, as required by Count Four. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment and instructed the lower court to enter a judgment of acquittal for O'Steen. View "USA v. O'Steen" on Justia Law

Ronald Rubin filed a lawsuit naming Kimberly Grippa as part of a criminal enterprise. His lawyer sent allegedly defamatory letters to state officials, asking them to investigate the alleged criminal enterprise and included copies of the complaint. Grippa sued Rubin for defamation, claiming the letters harmed her reputation and professional standing. Rubin moved for summary judgment, arguing the letters were protected by Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges and that he could not be held vicariously liable for his lawyer’s actions.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied Rubin’s motion for summary judgment on all grounds. The court found that the letters were not protected by the absolute litigation privilege because they were sent outside the litigation process and included additional statements beyond those in the complaint. The court also determined that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the statements were made with express malice, precluding the qualified litigation privilege. Lastly, the court rejected Rubin’s vicarious liability argument, suggesting that Rubin directed his lawyer’s actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the denial of Florida’s absolute litigation privilege is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine but lacked jurisdiction to consider the denial of the qualified litigation privilege or the vicarious liability issue. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the absolute litigation privilege, concluding that the letters were sent outside the judicial process and included additional defamatory statements. The court dismissed the appeal regarding the qualified litigation privilege and vicarious liability for lack of jurisdiction. View "Grippa v. Rubin" on Justia Law

Dr. Jeffery D. Milner, a physician, brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Baptist Health Montgomery, Prattville Baptist, and Team Health. Milner alleged that while working at a hospital owned by the defendants, he discovered that they were overprescribing opioids and fraudulently billing the government for them. He claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing after reporting the overprescription practices to his superiors.Previously, Milner filed an FCA retaliation lawsuit against the same defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court found that Milner did not sufficiently allege that he engaged in protected conduct under the FCA or that his termination was due to such conduct. Following this dismissal, Milner filed the current qui tam action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The district court dismissed this action as barred by res judicata, relying on the Eleventh Circuit's decisions in Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc. and Shurick v. Boeing Co.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that Milner's qui tam action was barred by res judicata because it involved the same parties and the same cause of action as his earlier retaliation lawsuit. The court found that both lawsuits arose from a common nucleus of operative fact: the defendants' alleged illegal conduct and Milner's discovery of that conduct leading to his discharge. The court also noted that the United States, which did not intervene in the qui tam action, was not barred from pursuing its own action in the future. View "Milner v. Baptist Health Montgomery" on Justia Law

Kh’Lajuwon Murat was released from prison and began his supervised release. The government petitioned the district court to revoke his supervised release due to seven alleged violations, including failing to submit truthful reports, unauthorized travel, associating with criminals, and committing new offenses. Murat admitted to three violations, and the district court revoked his supervised release, sentencing him to five months’ imprisonment and 54 months’ supervised release. The court held the remaining violations in abeyance.The district court held a second hearing on Murat’s final day of imprisonment to address the remaining violations. Murat challenged the court’s jurisdiction, but the court found for the government on one violation and dismissed the others. Murat was sentenced to an additional four months’ imprisonment and 48 months’ supervised release. Murat appealed, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining violations after the first revocation and that the second sentence was illegal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining violations because the petition was filed before the first revocation. The court explained that revocation does not terminate the term of supervised release, and the district court’s jurisdiction continues during the defendant’s imprisonment. The court also found that the district court’s procedure of holding violations in abeyance and issuing separate revocation orders did not constitute plain error. The judgment and sentence of the district court were affirmed. View "USA v. Murat" on Justia Law

Several plaintiffs, including United States Sugar Corporation, Okeelanta Corporation, and Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, challenged the United States Army Corps of Engineers' approval of the Everglades Agricultural Area Project (EAA Project). The plaintiffs argued that the Corps violated the Administrative Procedure Act by using the wrong water supply baseline in its Savings Clause analysis and by failing to conduct a separate analysis for the standalone operation of the storm water treatment area (STA). They also claimed that the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not evaluating the effects of the standalone STA operation in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).The Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the Corps. The district court held that the Corps did not violate the Savings Clause by using the LORS 2008 baseline instead of the year 2000 baseline, as the water supply loss reflected in LORS 2008 was due to structural integrity issues with the Herbert Hoover Dike, not an implementation of the Plan. The court also found that the Corps' decision to use LORS 2008 was reasonable and that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on the plaintiffs' first claim, agreeing that the Corps did not violate the Savings Clause. The court also affirmed the district court's decision on the plaintiffs' third claim, holding that the Corps did not violate NEPA by failing to include the standalone STA operation in its EIS, as the standalone STA had independent utility and could be evaluated in a supplemental EIS.However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision on the plaintiffs' second claim, finding that it was not ripe for review because the Corps had not made a final decision authorizing the standalone operation of the STA. The court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the second claim for lack of finality and ripeness. View "United States Sugar Corp. v. Army Corps of Engineers" on Justia Law

In 2000, Reginald Bertram Johnson abducted and raped 14-year-old C.A. at gunpoint. Following the assault, C.A. was examined by Dr. Scott Silla at a rape treatment center, where biological specimens were collected. Eight years later, a DNA match linked Johnson to the specimens. At trial, the prosecution introduced Dr. Silla’s report to support the chain of custody for the specimens, despite Johnson’s objection that the report’s admission violated the Confrontation Clause since Dr. Silla did not testify. Johnson was convicted and later filed a habeas corpus petition, which was denied.The Florida District Court of Appeal upheld Johnson’s convictions, ruling that the report was properly authenticated as a business record and that the Confrontation Clause was not violated because Johnson had the opportunity to cross-examine other witnesses involved in the collection and testing of the specimens. The Supreme Court of Florida and the U.S. Supreme Court denied further review. Johnson then exhausted his state post-conviction remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether the admission of Dr. Silla’s report without his testimony violated Johnson’s confrontation rights. The court assumed, without deciding, that there was a Confrontation Clause violation but found that any error was harmless. The court concluded that other evidence, including the DNA match and testimonies from C.A., Nurse Carter, Detective Signori, and forensic analyst Sharon Hinz, provided significant corroboration. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of Johnson’s habeas petition, holding that Johnson could not prove actual prejudice from the report’s admission. View "Johnson v. Florida Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

The appellants, Madhu Sudhan Kanapuram and Swathi Pillarisetty, are Indian citizens legally residing in the United States on temporary employment-based visas. They filed Form I-485 applications for adjustment of status to obtain EB-2 immigrant visas. Their applications were initially within the priority date cutoff, but due to a retrogression policy, the Final Action Date was pushed back, placing their applications outside the priority cutoff date. After waiting 19 months without a decision, they filed a lawsuit alleging that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of State violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying the adjudication of their applications.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the case, concluding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) barred judicial review of claims asserting delays in the adjudication of pending Form I-485 applications. The appellants then sought review of this dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of challenges to USCIS delays in adjudicating Form I-485 applications because the statute grants the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS broad discretion over the adjustment of status process. The court concluded that the decision to delay adjudication due to the retrogression policy falls within this discretionary authority. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order of dismissal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the appellants' APA claims. View "SudhanKanapuram v. Director, US Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law