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

Two individuals purchased Florida prepaid college tuition savings plans for their daughters in 2004 and 2006. The plans promised to cover tuition at Florida public colleges or transfer an equivalent amount to non-Florida colleges if the beneficiary chose to attend elsewhere. In 2007, the Florida Legislature authorized a new “tuition differential” fee, exempting holders of existing plans from paying that fee at Florida colleges. The Florida Prepaid College Board amended the plan contracts to specify that this new fee was not covered for out-of-state schools. Over a decade later, when both daughters chose to attend out-of-state colleges, the Board declined to transfer an amount equivalent to the tuition differential fee.The purchasers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against members of the Board, alleging that the Board’s refusal violated the Contracts and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Board from applying the statutory exemption and contract amendments to beneficiaries attending non-Florida schools. The Board moved to dismiss, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, reasoning the relief sought was prospective. However, the district court disagreed, ruling that the relief requested was essentially a demand for a refund, thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the suit was barred by sovereign immunity because the relief sought would require specific performance of a contract with the state, which is not permitted under Ex parte Young and related Supreme Court precedent. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal with prejudice and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice, as the dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Lavina v. Florida Prepaid College Board" on Justia Law

Two builders’ associations, whose members are largely non-union construction contractors, challenged a federal procurement mandate issued by executive order in February 2022. The order, issued by the President, presumptively requires all contractors and subcontractors on federal construction projects valued at $35 million or more to enter into project labor agreements with unions. The order allows for three specific exceptions if a senior agency official provides a written explanation. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council issued regulations implementing the order, and the Office of Management and Budget provided guidance. The associations argued that the mandate unfairly deprived their members of contracting opportunities and brought a facial challenge under several statutory and constitutional grounds, seeking to enjoin the mandate’s enforcement.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that the associations were likely to succeed on their claim under the Competition in Contracting Act, since the government was not meaningfully applying the order’s exceptions, but concluded that the associations would not suffer irreparable harm because they could challenge individual procurements in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The district court did not consider irreparable harm as to the associations’ other claims.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, although for different reasons. The Eleventh Circuit held that the associations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial challenge under the Competition in Contracting Act, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. The court emphasized that the existence of written exceptions in the executive order precluded a facial invalidity finding, and that the government acted within its statutory and proprietary authority. The court affirmed the district court’s order. View "Associated Builders and Contractors Florida First Coast Chapter v. General Services Administration" on Justia Law

A man was prosecuted after a person, J.R., died from a fentanyl overdose following the purchase of drugs from him. The central witness was J.R.’s girlfriend, who described the events leading up to J.R.’s death, including a meeting at a bank where J.R. met the defendant and returned with drugs packaged in foil. Video surveillance, financial records, and communications via Facebook Messenger corroborated the meeting and drug transaction. Law enforcement arrested the defendant during a sting operation using J.R.’s phone, and drugs found during the arrest matched the chemical profile of those found near J.R.’s body.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida conducted the trial. The defendant challenged the admissibility of Facebook messages as evidence of intent and prior bad acts, the use of photographs showing him in jail attire, and various aspects of the forensic evidence. The court admitted the challenged evidence, issued limiting instructions to the jury, and denied a motion to continue the trial. The jury convicted the defendant on counts of distributing fentanyl resulting in death and possession with intent to distribute. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment on the first count and ten years on the second. The district court also denied a motion for a new trial, rejecting claims of evidentiary errors and discovery violations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of the evidence, and the constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence. The appellate court held that the Facebook messages were properly admitted as probative of intent, that any error in admitting jail photographs was harmless, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction. The court also found no reversible discovery or Brady violations, and no plain error in the imposition of a mandatory life sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). The convictions and sentence were affirmed. View "USA v. Defilippis" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the rights to the name, image, and trademarks associated with the late artist Frida Kahlo. Two Panamanian corporations with principal places of business in Florida, Frida Kahlo Corporation and Frida Kahlo Investments, manage and license numerous Frida Kahlo trademarks. Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo, Frida Kahlo’s grandniece and a resident of Mexico, is an owner and former officer of Familia Kahlo S.A. de C.V., a Mexican company. The parties’ relationship became contentious, leading to litigation in several countries over the intellectual property rights. Plaintiffs alleged that, beginning in 2017 and specifically targeting Florida in 2021 and 2022, the defendants sent cease-and-desist letters to plaintiffs’ business partners in Florida, threatening legal action based on what plaintiffs contend were false claims to trademark ownership. Plaintiffs claimed these actions constituted tortious interference under Florida law and the Lanham Act.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found that Florida’s long-arm statute was satisfied for Familia Kahlo, but the corporate shield doctrine protected Pinedo because she was not acting in her personal capacity. The court further concluded that the minimum contacts required by due process were not established for either defendant, as sending cease-and-desist letters alone was insufficient.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that the corporate shield doctrine did not apply to Pinedo because the cease-and-desist letters were sent on her behalf in her personal capacity. The court also held that due process permitted the exercise of personal jurisdiction over both defendants, as the “effects test” was satisfied and a tortious cease-and-desist letter can meet the minimum contacts requirement. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Frida Kahlo Corporation v. Pinedo" on Justia Law

In June 2020, an individual purchased a recreational vehicle manufactured by two companies. The vehicle quickly developed problems, prompting the owner to seek repairs on multiple occasions and to notify the manufacturers of ongoing defects. Over the course of about two years, the vehicle underwent several repair attempts by both manufacturers and their authorized agents. After further repair offers were declined by the owner, statutory defect notices were sent, and additional repairs were made. The owner eventually sought relief under Florida’s Lemon Law, alleging that the manufacturers failed to adequately repair the defects.The dispute was submitted to arbitration pursuant to Florida Statute § 681.1095. The arbitration board concluded that the owner did not meet the burden of eligibility for a refund under the Lemon Law and only ordered limited repairs. The owner then appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. That court granted summary judgment for both manufacturers, holding that the owner failed to establish entitlement to relief because the statutory presumptions for repairs or days out-of-service were not met, and deemed as admitted the manufacturers’ statements of material facts due to procedural deficiencies in the owner’s filings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court erred by treating the statutory presumptions in Florida’s Lemon Law as mandatory requirements for relief. The court clarified that these presumptions are not prerequisites but rather examples of when a “reasonable number of attempts” has been made. Applying the correct standard, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment for one manufacturer because the owner failed to satisfy initial notice and repair requirements. However, as to the other manufacturer, it found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether a reasonable number of attempts had been made and therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Joyce v. Forest River, Inc." on Justia Law

Three individuals were detected by U.S. authorities aboard a “go-fast” vessel approximately 158 nautical miles southeast of Isla Beata, Dominican Republic. During the encounter, the men were seen discarding packages, later recovered as cocaine. The Coast Guard boarded the vessel, whose master claimed Colombian nationality, but Colombian authorities would not confirm or deny the vessel’s registration. As a result, U.S. authorities deemed the vessel “stateless” and seized approximately 375 kilograms of cocaine. The men were arrested and charged under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine while onboard a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the indictment. The court relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent upholding the constitutionality of the MDLEA, specifically regarding Congress’s ability to assert jurisdiction over stateless vessels on the high seas under the protective principle of international law. After the motion was denied, all three defendants pleaded guilty. At sentencing, the district court imposed varying terms of imprisonment and supervised release, granting some downward variances but denying a minor-role reduction to one defendant, who raised the issue on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that binding circuit precedent forecloses constitutional challenges to the MDLEA, including claims based on the Felonies Clause, the lack of a nexus to the United States, and the statute’s definition of “stateless vessel.” The court also held that recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines regarding minor-role reductions were substantive and not retroactively applicable. The district court’s denial of a minor-role reduction and all other challenged rulings were affirmed. View "USA v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The case involves a business arrangement among AE OpCo, AAR, and Short Brothers, centered on a procurement contract. AAR’s subsidiary manufactured airline parts for Short Brothers, and AAR guaranteed its subsidiary’s performance. When AE OpCo acquired AAR’s business, it assumed the obligation to perform under the contract, while AAR guaranteed AE OpCo’s performance to Short Brothers. In turn, AE OpCo agreed to indemnify AAR if AE OpCo defaulted. Later, AE OpCo filed for bankruptcy and rejected the procurement contract, prompting both Short Brothers and AAR to file claims in the bankruptcy proceeding.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida considered three claims from AAR: an indemnification claim for potential liability to Short Brothers, a defense-costs claim for legal fees incurred in ongoing litigation with Short Brothers in Northern Ireland, and a bankruptcy-costs claim for attorneys’ fees incurred in the bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court disallowed the indemnification claim as contingent and barred by 11 U.S.C. § 502(e)(1)(B), allowed the defense-costs claim as a fixed, non-contingent claim, and disallowed the bankruptcy-costs claim as a post-petition unsecured claim.On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s disallowance of the indemnification claim, holding that under Delaware law, the settlement between AE OpCo and Short Brothers did not release AE OpCo’s liability, so AAR remained co-liable and the claim was properly disallowed under § 502(e)(1)(B). The appellate court also affirmed the allowance of the defense-costs claim, finding it was not contingent since all events giving rise to liability had occurred. However, the court reversed the disallowance of the bankruptcy-costs claim, holding that neither § 502(b) nor § 506(b) barred allowance of such a claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "AE OPCO III, LLC v. AAR CORP." on Justia Law

A sign operator installed two advertising signs near Interstate 85 in Atlanta in 1993, after obtaining permits under the city’s 1982 sign code. These permits were renewed several times. In 2015, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the city amended its sign code, removing several content-based provisions but allowing lawful, nonconforming signs to remain. When the sign operator later sought to upgrade the signs, the city approved the changes, but private parties challenged the decision. The Superior Court of Fulton County found that the original permits were unlawful under the 1982 code, making the signs illegal. The city then ordered removal of the signs and issued citations when the order was not followed.The sign operator, joined by the property owner and its president, sued the City of Atlanta in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking a declaration that the 1982 sign code was unconstitutional under the First Amendment and seeking to enjoin its enforcement. The district court initially dismissed some claims for lack of jurisdiction, then reconsidered and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the code was content-based and subject to strict scrutiny, which the city had not attempted to satisfy.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs only had standing to challenge the provision of the 1982 code that applied to their signs—section 16-28.019(7)—rather than the entire code. The court further held that this provision, which distinguished between on-premises and off-premises signs, was content-neutral under the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and injunction and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the provision meets the applicable intermediate scrutiny standard. View "Anderson v. City of Atlanta, Georgia" on Justia Law

A group of three major construction firms formed a joint venture to undertake Florida’s largest infrastructure project: the reconstruction and expansion of a major interstate. The venture’s contractual and financial structure was complicated, involving a public-private partnership in which a concessionaire entity financed the project, hired the joint venture to perform the actual construction, and would gain long-term maintenance rights. One member of the joint venture, aware of mounting losses, proposed a strategy for the venture to attempt to exit the project or use the threat of termination as leverage in negotiations. This strategy relied on a contested interpretation of the contract and was opposed by the other members, who considered it dangerously speculative and likely to cause greater harm.As losses increased, the dissenting member stopped contributing required capital to the joint venture, accusing the managing partner of breaching its fiduciary duties by refusing to pursue the proposed termination strategy, and alleging a conflict of interest due to overlapping ownership between the managing partner and the concessionaire. The other members responded by contributing additional funds to keep the project solvent and countersued for breach of contract and indemnity.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held a bench trial and found that the managing partner had not breached any fiduciary duty or acted with gross negligence. The court also found that the dissenting member had materially breached the joint venture agreement by refusing to pay its share of capital calls, and ordered it to reimburse the other members, including prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the managing partner had acted in the best interest of the joint venture by not pursuing the proposed termination, and that there was no actionable conflict of interest under Florida partnership law. The court also concluded that the dissenting member’s failure to fund was a material breach, entitling the other members to indemnification and statutory prejudgment interest. View "The Lane Construction Corporation v. Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc." on Justia Law

A prisoner at Phillips State Prison in Georgia stabbed a high-ranking member of the Bloods gang and, for his protection, was placed in protective custody and then transferred to Baldwin State Prison. The transfer request referenced the risk from the gang member he had assaulted. Upon arrival at Baldwin, the prisoner was placed in the general population rather than protective custody. There, after a brief period, he was stabbed to death by another inmate associated with the Bloods gang. The prisoner’s parents and estate brought claims against five Georgia Department of Corrections officials, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment based on deliberate indifference to the risk the prisoner faced.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia dismissed some claims as time-barred and, on summary judgment, found that all defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court concluded that none of the officials had violated clearly established law or demonstrated the subjective awareness required for Eighth Amendment liability under claims of deliberate indifference.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the district court correctly applied the standard for deliberate indifference, as clarified in Wade v. McDade and Farmer v. Brennan. The Eleventh Circuit held that, while the risk to the prisoner was objectively serious, none of the defendants possessed the necessary subjective knowledge that their own conduct placed the prisoner at substantial risk of serious harm. The court emphasized that deliberate indifference requires actual, specific knowledge of the risk and a disregard of that risk. As a result, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to all defendants and upheld the dismissal of the claims. View "McClinton v. Warden" on Justia Law