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

Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment and chemical castration after he was convicted of burglary, aggravated kidnapping of a child, and two counts of capital sexual battery. The state court later granted petitioner's motion to correct an illegal sentence on the ground that the trial court failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for chemical castration. In this appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's dismissal of his petition as second or successive under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1). The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition as second or successive. In this case, because petitioner was not "in custody pursuant to," section 2254(b)(1), the consent order that he not undergo chemical castration did not trigger a new round of federal collateral review. View "Patterson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

American Dawn terminated plaintiff, a restaurant linen salesman, for participating in a fraudulent scheme against ALSCO, and plaintiff later found employment with American Dawn's competitor, Baltic. After plaintiff joined Baltic, a sales manager at American Dawn and a consultant for ALSCO allegedly conspired to freeze Baltic out of the restaurant linens market. Plaintiff lost his job as a result of the alleged conspiracy and subsequently filed suit, alleging violation of the antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The court concluded that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge a conspiracy directed at his employer even if the conspiracy caused plaintiff's termination. The court further concluded that plaintiff failed to plead claims of racketeering, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Feldman v. American Dawn, Inc." on Justia Law

Thermoset filed a products liability suit in Florida state court against GAF and RSGO. After GAF removed to federal court, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants. Thermoset appealed and shortly afterwards, it became apparent that RSGO was not a diverse party at the time of removal. The court vacated the district court's summary judgment order and remanded with instructions to send this case back to the state court for further proceedings. The court explained that, because RSGO was not a nominal party, its non-diverse citizenship could not be ignored for jurisdictional purposes. And because RSGO was an indispensable party under Rule 19, the court could not preserve jurisdiction over the rest of the case by dismissing RSGO. View "Thermoset Corp. v. Building Materials Corp of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendants operated a racketeering enterprise through which they performed and billed for unnecessary heart procedures. The district court dismissed the case. At issue on appeal was whether the Class Action Fairness Act's local-controversy provision, (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(4), precluded the district court from exercising federal-question jurisdiction. If not, the court must decide whether plaintiffs alleged that they were injured in their "business or property," under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). The court affirmed the denial of plaintiffs' motion to remand because CAFA's local-controversy provision does not prohibit district courts from exercising federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331. However, the court vacated the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss because plaintiffs alleged economic injuries that were recoverable under RICO. View "Blevins v. Seydi V. Aksut, M.D." on Justia Law

This case involved a contract dispute arising out of the lease of telecommunications equipment by GDG to the Government of Belize. In this appeal, the Government challenged the district court's denial of its motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the Government waived its sovereign immunity. In this case, the Government claimed that the express waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the contract was ineffectual because its Minister of Budget Management, who negotiated and signed the contract on its behalf, lacked the authority to waive sovereign immunity. The court explained that, despite the Minister's claimed lack of authority to bind Belize, the Government ratified the actions by fully performing its contract obligations during the lease term and paying approximately $13.5 million in forty separate payments over a period of nearly six years and spanning two different administrations. Therefore, the court reasoned that the Government's conduct intended it to be bound by the contract and affirmed the district court's denial of the Government's motion to dismiss. View "GDG Acquisitions LLC v. Government of Belize" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses, entering into a binding agreement with the government. At issue is whether the court should apply the rule of Marks v. United States to the splintered opinion in Freeman v. United States to determine whether a defendant who entered into a plea agreement that recommended a particular sentence as a condition of his guilty plea is eligible for a reduced sentence, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court agreed with the district court's determination that Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion stated the holding in Freeman because she concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds, and the district court's denial of defendant's motion based on the reasoning of that concurring opinion. The court explained that, in this case, defendant was ineligible for a sentence reduction because he was not sentenced "based on a sentencing range," 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), that has since been lowered. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which also served under the court's rules as a petition for rehearing before the panel. The court granted the petition for rehearing to the panel to the extent that the court vacated its previous opinion and substituted in its place this one. Petitioner, convicted of battery and sexual battery of a five-year-old in Florida, appealed the dismissal of his habeas petition. The court granted him a certificate of appealability on the the issue of whether the district court improperly determined that his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition was time-barred, based on its finding that he was not entitled to equitable tolling. The court held that an attorney's negligence, even gross negligence, or misunderstanding about the law is not by itself a serious instance of attorney misconduct for equitable tolling purposes, even though it does violate the ABA model rules as all, or virtually all, attorney negligence does. Because petitioner showed, at most, that his failure to meet the filing deadline was the product of his attorney’s good faith but negligent or grossly negligent misunderstanding of the law, the district court properly dismissed the habeas petition as untimely. View "Cadet v. Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased a luxury yacht from Seller, the yacht was manufactured by Horizon and its wholly-owned subsidiary Premier in Taiwan, Horizon and Premier are Taiwanese companies, and Seller is an independent U.S. corporation based in Florida. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging ten claims related to the purchase of the yacht. The district court entered summary judgment for defendants on all but two claims: the breach of express warranty claims against Horizon and Premier; entered summary judgment for Seller on its counterclaim to foreclose on the promissory note; and certified the judgment as a partial final judgment for interlocutory review. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the entry of summary judgment as to: (1) the fraudulent inducement claims against all three defendants (Count I); (2) the breach of implied warranty claims against all three defendants (Counts III, IV, and VII); and (3) the breach of express warranty claim against Seller, Horizon Yachts, Inc. (Count VIII). The court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment as to Counts I, III, IV, VII, and VIII and remanded for trial; affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to the remaining claims; and reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on defendants' counterclaim. View "Global Quest v. Horizon Yachts" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of conspiracy and drug-related charges, appealed the district court's order denying his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court affirmed the district court's judgment affirming petitioner's convictions on Counts 14 and 17, and its finding that petitioner abandoned any challenge to Count 11. However, the court agreed with the parties and concluded that petitioner's conviction for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, Count 1, should be vacated. In this case, a police officer's false testimony was material to the government's case, and the government conceded that it cannot show that the perjured testimony did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict. Therefore, the court vacated petitioner's conviction on Count 1 and remanded for resentencing. View "Phillips v. United States" on Justia Law

The SEC filed suit against defendant, alleging violations of the registration provisions of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq., and fraud in the sale of securities in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. The court awarded summary judgment to the SEC, finding no merit in defendant's affirmative defenses. A jury found defendant liable on the fraud claims. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the SEC because it found the Banyon note offerings were not eligible for a Regulation D exemption from the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act. The court held that Rule 508(a) not only preserves the safe harbor for certain insignificant deviations in private actions, but it also preserves the safe harbor in SEC enforcement actions. In this case, the court reasoned that defendant established a genuine dispute of material fact whether the Banyon note offering, as a whole, falls under the safe harbor provision in Rule 508. The court also concluded that defendant failed to show serious prejudice to his case from the district court's denial of the motion for continuance; the district court properly based the disgorgement order upon defendant's gains and not the investors' losses; and the district court did not plainly err in questioning defendant and another witness during trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "SEC v. Levin" on Justia Law