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

ZPRIM sought review of the SEC's final order finding that petitioners made material misrepresentations to prospective clients in violation of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-1. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the violations and monetary sanctions related to the newsletter ZPRIM published in December 2009. In this case, ZPRIM's disclaimer was not boilerplate and was not buried among too many other things, but was explicit, repetitive and linked to the statement about which the SEC complains. Therefore, in light of the clear cautionary statements in the newsletter, the Commission's finding of materiality for that newsletter was not supported by substantial evidence. The court affirmed all other violations and sanctions. View "ZPR Investment Management Inc. v. SEC" on Justia Law

The board of trustees for the University filed suit against CoMentis in federal court, asserting diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). The district court dismissed the complaint on the merits. The Eleventh Circuit held that, because the USF Board was an arm of the Florida state government, the district court lacked diversity jurisdiction over the suit between it and CoMentis, a citizen of another state. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "University of South Florida Board of Trustees v. CoMentis, Inc." on Justia Law

Answering certified questions from the Eleventh Circuit, the Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that, while O.C.G.A. 9-11-67.1 sets forth certain terms and conditions that must be included in every written offer of settlement, nothing in Georgia law or the statute precludes parties from requiring "some additional act to effectuate acceptance;" O.C.G.A. 9-11-67.1 permits unilateral contracts whereby Pre-Suit Offers may demand acceptance in the form of performance before there was a binding enforceable settlement contract; and O.C.G.A. 9-11-67.1 does not preclude a Pre-Suit Offer from demanding timely payment as a condition of acceptance. In light of these answers, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly determined that O.C.G.A. 9-11-67.1 does not prohibit a party from requiring timely payment as a condition of acceptance of a settlement offer; the offer letter in this case unambiguously conditioned acceptance on timely payment; the insurers' issuance of two $50,000 checks with incomplete addresses, which never reached defendants or their attorney, did not satisfy this timely-payment condition; and the insurer failed to accept defendants' settlement offer, thus preventing the formation of a binding settlement agreement. Accordingly, the court affirmed summary judgment for defendants. View "Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Woodard" on Justia Law

Not all deception by law enforcement invalidates voluntary consent. Defendants pleaded guilty to several offenses related to credit card fraud and then appealed the denial of their motion to suppress evidence. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that one of the defendants voluntarily consented to the search because she made a strategic choice to report a burglary and to admit the officers into her home. In this case, defendants' home was previously burgled and officers came to their house on the pretense of following up on the burglaries. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the "ruse" did not coerce defendant into giving her consent voluntarily. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Spivey" on Justia Law

Section 707(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which allows a bankruptcy court to dismiss a petition filed under Chapter 7 if it determines that relief would be an "abuse" within the meaning of that section, applies to a petition that was initially filed under Chapter 13 but later converted to a petition under Chapter 7. The Eleventh Circuit explained that by excluding converted cases from section 707(b), the effect would be to read this important remedial provision out of the Code. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the petition in this case. View "Pollitzer v. Gebhardt" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against S&N for negligence, product liability, breach of contract, and misrepresentation. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from his decision to get S&N's metal-on-metal hip replacement system and the injuries he says it caused him. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the negligence claim to the extent it relies on an improper training or failure to warn theory of liability; affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim; and reversed the dismissal of the negligence claim and strict product liability claims premised on manufacturing defect, as well as his misrepresentation claim. The court explained that these surviving claims were cognizable Florida common law causes of action and were not preempted by federal law. View "Mink v. Smith & Nephew, Inc." on Justia Law

Richard Culbertson was counsel for the four plaintiffs in these consolidated Social Security disability benefits cases. At issue in this appeal was the attorney's fees for Culbertson under 42 U.S.C. 406 and the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not err in its interpretation and application of Dawson v. Finch, 425 F.2d 1192 (5th Cir. 1970) and by imposing a 24% cap on section 406 fees; it was necessary for the district court to add the requested section 406(b) fee together with his EAJA award; and the district court did not abuse its discretion and did not exceed its authority. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wood v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of motions for discovery because the jurisdictional facts in this case were genuinely in dispute and there was no undue delay by the ACLU. In this case, the ACLU twice asked for jurisdictional discovery on a state law enforcement officer's status, but both requests were denied. The court held that the district court erred when it completely denied the ACLU any opportunity to inquire into the capacity in which the officer created, submitted, and/or maintained the requested documents, a fact which implicated both the merits of the ACLU's claim and the district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). Furthermore, the interrogatories propounded by the district court did not render this error harmless. Given the limited record, this was a factual inconsistency the district court should not have resolved solely on the papers. View "American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. v. City of Sarasota" on Justia Law

Conservationists filed suit under the Clean Water Act and Florida law, challenging the Corps' decisions about when and how to release water from certain locks along the Okeechobee Waterway. The district court dismissed the complaint based on the Corps' sovereign immunity. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b) required the dismissal of this case regardless of whether the court agreed with the Water District's sequencing argument on cross-appeal or the Corps' sovereign immunity argument. The court need not reach those matters because the Water District was an indispensable party under Rule 19(b) and thus the action may not proceed without the Water District. View "Florida Wildlife Federation Inc. v. US Army Corps of Engineers" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the grant of partial summary judgment on the binding effect of the verdict in the Circuit Court's breach-of-contract case and held that the parties must again litigate statutory damages. In this case, GEICO did not receive appellate review of the statutory-damages determination in the parties' underlying breach-of-contract case. Therefore, that damages determination did not bind the parties in this bad faith case. View "Bottini v. GEICO" on Justia Law