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

The Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's orders of removable and denial of cancellation of removal based on petitioner's felony conviction for battery of a child by throwing, tossing, projecting, or expelling blood, seminal fluid, urine, or feces, in violation of Florida Statute 784.085. The court held that petitioner was removable because his conviction was a crime of child abuse within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i); petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i); and the IJ did not deprive petitioner of due process by granting the government's motion to pretermit his application for cancellation of removal. View "Pierre v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Cita Trust appealed the district court's dismissal of its complaint against Fifth Third Bank in a commercial contract dispute action. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by dismissing the complaint as untimely and enforcing the contractual one-year limitation period. In this case, the agreement's limitation provision was reasonable, clear, and unambiguous. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Cita leave to amend its complaint, because Cita did not properly move for leave to amend. View "Cita Trust Company AG v. Fifth Third Bank" on Justia Law

PETA filed suit against Seaquarium, alleging that it perpetrated an unlawful take by harming or harassing Lolita, a killer whale, in violation of section 9(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Seaquarium, but did not agree that actionable harm or harassment included only deadly or potentially deadly harm. Rather, the court held that Seaquarium was entitled to summary judgment because the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to PETA, did not support the conclusion that the conditions of her captivity pose a threat of serious harm to Lolita. View "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Miami Seaquarium" on Justia Law

After Dontrell Stephens was shot four times by Deputy Sheriff Adams Lin and was permanently paralyzed, an action was brought against Deputy Lin and Sheriff Bradshaw. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Sheriff Bradshaw on the Monell claim brought against him, but remanded for a new trial upon finding that an erroneous jury instruction deprived Deputy Lin of the opportunity to have his claimed defense of qualified immunity considered by the district court. In this case, the excessive force inquiry was not sufficiently divorced from the qualified immunity inquiry in that the instruction improperly conflated the two inquiries and presented the jury with both together. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a new trial. View "Stephens v. Bradshaw" on Justia Law

This case arose from a dispute over the ownership of the mark "The Commodores." Defendant appealed an order granting judgment as a matter of law to CEC and converting a preliminary injunction into a permanent one against defendant and his corporation, Fifth Avenue. The Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to dismiss and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony from an attorney who proffered only legal conclusions; when defendant left the band, he left behind his common-law rights to the marks and those rights remained with CEC; the scope of the injunction was not impermissibly broad; defendant's arguments about the validity of the federal registration of the marks were irrelevant to this determination; and defendant did not establish any affirmative defenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Commodores Entertainment Corp. v. McClary" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for reentering the country illegal following deportation. The court held that defendant was unable to meet the requirements that would allow for a collateral attack of her underlying deportation order. Even assuming without deciding that defendant was correct in asserting that a conviction for Florida grand theft no longer qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude, the court held that defendant was not deprived of a meaningful opportunity for judicial review of her deportation order and may not collaterally attack her underlying deportation order in these 8 U.S.C. 1326 proceedings. The court also held that the district court's evidentiary rulings were either not erroneous or, if they were, the error was harmless. View "United States v. Watkins" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a sentencing enhancement that applied when a defendant has been deported after committing a "crime of violence" as defined by USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The court held that defendant's previous conviction under Georgia law of aggravated assault as defined by O.C.G.A 16-5-21(a)(2) was a crime of violence under the operative version of USSG 2L1.2 and warranted the 16-level sentencing enhancement provided for in section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). View "United States v. Morales-Alonso" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of defrauding investors with regard to real estate located on the island of Rum Cay in the Bahamas. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motions for a judgment of acquittal; the district court did not err in determining the loss amount, restitution award, and defendant's sentence; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to vacate the verdict for alleged juror misconduct. View "United States v. Foster" on Justia Law

When a litigant files a shotgun pleading, is represented by counsel, and fails to request leave to amend, a district court must sua sponte give him one chance to replead before dismissing his case with prejudice on non-merits shotgun pleading grounds. In the repleading order, the district court should explain how the offending pleading violates the shotgun pleading rule so that the party may properly avoid future shotgun pleadings. Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his Second Amended Complaint (SAC) with prejudice. In this case, the district court sua sponte gave plaintiff a chance to replead and remedy his shotgun pleading issues. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal with prejudice. The court remanded for the limited purpose of clarifying that the dismissal of the state law claims was without prejudice as to refiling in state court. The court affirmed on all other issues. View "Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions related to their involvement in an extensive Medicare fraud scheme. The court rejected Defendants Crabtree, Marks, and Salafias' double jeopardy argument where there were no issues from the first trial that were essential to the healthcare fraud conspiracy count in the second trial; held that there was sufficient evidence at trial to uphold defendants' convictions for the second trial; rejected defendants' trial-related claims; and held that the district court properly applied the organizer or leader and vulnerable victims enhancements to Defendant Rousseau's sentence. View "United States v. Crabtree" on Justia Law