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

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 28 U.S.C. 1350 note, against defendant, a Lieutenant in the Chilean Army, who oversaw and participated in the detention, torture, and murder of Víctor Jara in the days following General Augusto Pinochet's coup in Chile. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims, holding that a federal court may not exercise jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute when all of defendant’s relevant conduct took place outside the United States. View "Jara v. Barrientos Nunez" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for money damages against the United States, holding that Section 3730 of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730, did not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States. The court explained that Section 3730 said nothing about a complaint filed against the government by a relator whose qui tam action was dismissed for a discovery violation after the government obtained a settlement, and it did not expressly waive sovereign immunity from that kind of collateral attack. View "King v. United States Government" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Stay of Proceedings and Motion to Reopen Case and Substitute Plaintiff. The court held that the district court went straight to the "excusable neglect" analysis without considering whether its December 29 stay effectively extended the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 period. Because it applied an incorrect legal standard, the district court abused its discretion. The court instructed that the district court, on remand, should consider whether its order allowing the case to be reopened if "a proper motion is made within 90 days hereof" had the effect of extending the Rule 25 deadline to March 29. If so, plaintiff's motions for an extension of the stay were both timely. If not, the district court must then turn to the question of whether plaintiff's delay was the result of "excusable neglect." View "Lizarazo v. Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the county, seeking relief from a 2010 zoning ordinance that prohibited short term rentals of single family dwellings. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred review of all of plaintiff's claims challenging the application of Regulation 15.35 to her property. Rooker-Feldman barred federal review because all of her claims in this case were inextricably intertwined with those from her first civil case. The court explained that plaintiff's proper channel for seeking relief was to appeal to state appellate courts, which she did, and lost. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "May v. Morgan County, Georgia" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant Beaulieu's convictions for drug trafficking and firearms offenses, holding that the district court did not err in its answer to the jury's questions, and the government did not commit prosecutorial misconduct that prejudiced defendant's right to a fair trial. The court also affirmed Defendant Oscar's convictions for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm on two different dates. The court rejected defendants' claims that the district court erred during jury deliberations in regard to Juror 11, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Oscar's motion for severance. However, the court vacated Beaulieu’s sentence imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), holding that he was not subject to the ACCA's enhanced penalties and was not an armed career criminal as defined under USSG 4B1.4(a). View "United States v. Oscar" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Deputy Casal and Pardinas under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as claims under Georgia's Constitution. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment on the federal claims for excessive force against Pardinas and bodily privacy against both defendants; affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the state law claim for excessive force against Pardinas; reversed the denial of summary judgment on the federal and state law claims for unlawful entry against Casal where Casal's entry based on the arrest warrant was permitted under Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1388 (1980), and for unlawful protective sweep against Casal because his actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brand v. Casal" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by finding that defendant was accountable for the scheme's entire intended loss amount, and by applying a four-level sentencing enhancement because the victims suffered substantial financial hardship when they were made insecure in life's basic necessities View "United States v. Castaneda-Pozo" on Justia Law

Appellants, artists in the hip hop industry, appealed the dismissal of their copyright infringement case, arguing that their copyright registrations for a song were improperly invalidated under 17 U.S.C. 411 without a showing of scienter and that they made a proper showing of copyright ownership. The Eleventh Circuit held that it need not reach a decision on the ownership issue because the district court misapplied the law by invalidating the copyright registrations. In this case, the district court erred by sua sponte raising the issue of registration validity. Furthermore, the good faith inaccuracies in the song registrations should not preclude the undisputed authors from copyright protection, and appellants have met their burden of production for establishing a prima facie case of ownership and copyright validity. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Roberts v. Gordy" on Justia Law

An order denying a motion to quash a subpoena is a final, appealable order in proceedings brought under 28 U.S.C. 1782. Applicants, minority shareholders of Acheron, applied to the district court under 28 U.S.C. 1782 for an order requiring Litai to produce certain discovery for use in foreign proceedings. The district court granted the application and issued subpoenas. On appeal, Litai challenged the district court's order denying its motion to quash and granted Applicants' cross-motion to compel. The Eleventh Circuit determined that it had jurisdiction over the appeal and held, on the merits, that the district court did not err by concluding that the discovery sought was for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal. As part of the process, Applicants have the right to submit information for the investigating judge's consideration. View "In re Application of Furstenberg Finance SAS v. Litai Assets LLC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in an action alleging that plaintiff was unlawfully discharged from the police department based on disability and/or racial or gender discrimination. The court held that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to meet her prima facie burden that she was actually disabled, but was sufficient on whether she was regarded as disabled. The court also held that the district court erred in holding that plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence that she was a qualified individual. The court reasoned that, in this case, there was significant evidence that cuts against Union City's contention that exposure to OC spray and Taser shocks were essential functions of the job of police detective. The court also held that plaintiff met her prima facie burden of demonstrating that the City discriminated against her because of her perceived disability. Plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence that she was not a direct threat, the differing treatment of plaintiff's white colleagues, in combination with the rest of the evidence, was part of a mosaic of circumstantial evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact on whether the police department's actions were discriminatory on the basis of race and/or gender. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's claim of municipal liability. View "Lewis v. Union City, Georgia" on Justia Law