by
Yellowfin filed suit against Barker Boatworks and Kevin Barker, alleging claims for trade dress infringement and false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, common law unfair competition, common law trade dress infringement, and violation of Florida's Uniform Trade Secret Act (FUTSA). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. The court, weighing the likelihood of confusion factors holistically, held that the district court did not err in holding that Yellowfin could not, as a matter of law, prove a likelihood of confusion between Barker Boatworks' trade dress and its own. Therefore, the court held that the district court properly rejected the rest of Yellowfin's claims related to trade dress and consumer confusion. The court rejected Yellowfin's claims under FUTSA and held that Yellowfin failed to show that Barker allegedly misappropriated Source Information and Customer Information trade secrets. View "Yellowfin Yachts, Inc. v. Barker Boatworks, LLC" on Justia Law

by
Former employees of the Foundation filed suit under the False Claims Act, alleging that the incentives offered to employees and patients were unlawful kickbacks that rendered false any claims for federal reimbursement. The district court dismissed all but two claims, and later granted summary judgment on the remaining claims. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed and held that the employee exemption to the Anti-Kickback Statute applied to payments that the Foundation made to an employee tasked with referring HIV-positive patients to healthcare services offered by the Foundation. The court also held that the district court correctly dismissed relators' other claims for lack of particularity and that relators waived their argument about amendment. View "Carrel v. AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc." on Justia Law

by
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for charges related to access device fraud and identity theft. The court held that the district court correctly gave the deliberate ignorance instruction to the jury; the evidence was sufficient to support the aggravated identity theft convictions; the district court did not err in denying her a minor role reduction under USSG 3B1.2; the district court did not err in its loss calculation under USSG 2B1.1(b)(1); and the record included ample evidence to support the 14 level increase in defendant's offense level. View "United States v. Maitre" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and wire fraud, and conspiracy to defraud the United States and pay healthcare kickbacks. The court held that the district court did not err when it admitted the factual basis for the plea agreement because defendant knowingly and voluntarily signed a valid waiver. The court rejected defendant's arguments that the district court committed other errors at his trial when it calculated his Sentencing Guidelines range. The court vacated, however, the district court's forfeiture order and remanded for a new order where the district court impermissibly held defendant jointly and severally liable for the proceeds of the conspiracy. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Elbeblawy" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
Medallion Holders filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the County's 2016 ordinance authorizing Transportation Network Entities (TNEs). After the district court dismissed the complaint, the Florida legislature passed a new body of laws that preempted the TNE Ordinance, and thus the Medallion Holders' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Medallion Holders' claims for monetary damages arising under the Takings and Equal Protection Clauses, which were not moot. The court explained that the medallions conferred by the County created a license to offer for-hire taxicab services in Miami-Dade County; the County did not afford the Medallion Holders the right to exclude competition in the marketplace; and the regulatory scheme was rationally related to improving the quality and safety of for-hire transportation service and was wholly consonant with the Equal Protection Clause. View "Checker Cab Operators, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County" on Justia Law

by
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Via Varejo in an action brought by Direct Niche under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), seeking to obtain a declaratory judgment that its registration and use of the domain name casasbahia.com was not unlawful under the ACPA. At issue on appeal was whether Via Varejo owned the Casas Bahia service mark in the United States. The court held that Via Varejo owns the Casas Bahia service mark in the United States where it contracted with U.S. companies to provide advertising of their goods on the Casas Bahia website. Furthermore, Via Varejo's marketing director testified to his personal knowledge that the Casas Bahia Website receives millions of visits every year from IP addresses located in the United States. Therefore, the district court's conclusion that the evidence demonstrated sufficient public use in commerce to establish ownership of the mark was not clearly erroneous. View "Direct Niche, LLC v. Via Varejo S/A" on Justia Law

by
The Eleventh Circuit withdrew its previous opinion and issued this opinion in its place. Plaintiffs, who are valets, filed a putative class action against FCPS, alleging claims under the minimum-wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court held that the district court correctly ruled that the vehicles parked by plaintiffs while working as valets for FCPS were not "materials" under the FLSA. Nonetheless, FCPS was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of "enterprise" coverage. The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a jury could find that the valet tickets used by plaintiffs in their work for FCPS constituted "materials" under the FLSA's "handling clause," and thus provided "enterprise" coverage. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Rodriguez Asalde v. First Class Parking Systems, LLC" on Justia Law

by
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim, but on an alternative ground. The court held that counsel for homeowners filed a multi-count, incomprehensible complaint that flouted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Circuit's well-established precedent. The court found that plaintiffs obstructed the due administration of justice in the district court by attempting to prosecute an incomprehensible pleading to judgment. Furthermore, plaintiffs were doing the same here by urging this court to uphold the sufficiency of their amended complaint. The court instructed counsel to show cause why the court should not order him to pay defendants double costs and their expenses, including the attorney's fees they incurred in defending these appeals. View "Jackson v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff, who is deaf, filed suit against PGH and its parent organization, Lifemark Hospitals, alleging that they failed to provide an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter for plaintiff to effectively communicate during an involuntary commitment evaluation. At issue on appeal was whether plaintiff was afforded an equal opportunity, through an appropriate auxiliary aid, to effectively communicate medically relevant information during his involuntary commitment evaluation. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff was able to effectively communicate medically relevant information and whether the hospital personnel were deliberately indifferent. View "Crane v. Lifemark Hospitals, Inc." on Justia Law

by
At issue in this appeal was the meaning between the term "employer" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and under the general common law. The Eleventh Circuit applied the common law of agency definition of "employer" in this case and held that Consolidated Citrus was not a joint employer for purposes of plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claim since the company was not an "employer" under the common-law definition of that term. In this case, the relevant factors for determining whether Consolidated Citrus was a common law "employer" were control, the source of the instrumentalities and tools, the location of the work, and the provision of employee benefits. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Consolidated Citrus on the breach-of-contract claim. View "Garcia-Celestino v. Consolidated Citrus Limited Partnership" on Justia Law