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

Plaintiff, seeking to represent a class of customers, filed a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-68, case claiming that Spirit engaged in an elaborate criminal enterprise involving the use of mail and wire fraud. The complaint specifically alleged that Spirit portrayed its Passenger Usage Fee as a government-imposed or authorized fee when, in fact, it was merely a portion of the base fare price of an airline ticket charged by the airline. On remand, the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege proximate cause; and they also failed to properly plead the existence of a RICO enterprise. View "Ray v. Spirit Airlines" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to traffic in stolen goods and to traffic in contraband cigarettes. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment as being untimely under the applicable statute of limitations; the district court did not err in denying his due-process challenge; defendant was not entitled to discovery on his misconduct claim and, in any event, defendant failed to show prejudice by the government’s failure to turn over any claimed information about any alleged benefits conferred on Phillip Morris; the evidence was sufficient to establish a conspiracy either to traffic in stolen goods or a conspiracy to traffic in contraband cigarettes; the district court did not err by denying defendant's request for a buyer-seller relationship instruction; and the district court committed harmless error by failing to enter a preliminary forfeiture order after the jury rendered its verdict and before the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy and the district court's forfeiture order. View "United States v. Farias" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 292 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to three counts of enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). The court concluded that the district court’s decision not to group Count One and Count Two of defendant's convictions was in accordance with USSG 3D1.2 because the conduct underlying each count caused a separate and distinct harm to the victim; the district court gave an adequate explanation for the within-guideline sentence it imposed; and the district court acted within its discretion by selecting a substantively reasonable sentence. In this case, the district court did not impose a sentence greater than necessary to comply with the statutory goals of sentencing. Therefore, because defendant's sentence is substantively and procedurally reasonable, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Nagel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against various local government defendants, claiming unjust enrichment and seeking disgorgement of traffic fines plaintiffs allege were imposed in violation of Florida law. The district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The court held in CSX Transp., Inc. v. Kissimmee Util. Auth., that an order denying Florida sovereign immunity is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Because CSX is still controlling on that point of law, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. The court also denied defendants' motion for a frivolity determination and sanctions because the jurisdictional argument raised by defendants is not entirely meritless. View "Parker v. City Of Apopka" on Justia Law

In 1988, NPS acquired additional land to the the Big Cypress National Preserve. NPCA filed suit contending that the the NPS's General Management Plan's (GMP) inclusion of Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) trails for the Addition Lands was arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136, and Organic Act. The district court concluded that the NPS did not violate the Wilderness Act, finding that the 2010 reassessment of the wilderness eligibility determination was the result of reasoned decision-making rather than political manipulation; with respect to the 1/2-mile buffer, the NPS’s rational for excluding those lands from wilderness eligibility was supported by the record; NPS did not violate the Organic Act by failing to promote conservation because the record supported the NPS’s conclusion that the existing ORV trail network retained the imprint of human engineering and would continue to handle ORV traffic from private property owners accessing their property; and the NPS’s Biological Evaluation and the FWS’s Biological Opinion regarding the eastern indigo snake and Florida panther were supported by the record. NPCA appealed. The court rejected NPCA's claims and concluded that substantial evidence supports the district court's conclusions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "National Parks Conservation Ass'n v. US DOI" on Justia Law

The seven consolidated cases in this appeal all involve attempts by assignees of a health maintenance organization (HMO) to recover conditional payments via the Medicare Secondary Payer Act's (MSP Act), 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(2)(B)(ii), (b)(3)(A), private cause of action. At issue is whether a contractual obligation, without more (specifically, without a judgment or settlement agreement from a separate proceeding), can satisfy the “demonstrated responsibility” requirement of the private cause of action provided for by the MSP Act. The court held that a plaintiff suing a primary plan under the private cause of action in the MSP Act may satisfy the demonstrated responsibility prerequisite by alleging the existence of a contractual obligation to pay. A judgment or settlement from a separate proceeding is not necessary. Therefore, the court vacated the district courts' judgments and remanded for further proceedings. View "MSP Recovery LLC v. AllState Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Sheriff Huey Mack and others, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, arising from his detention as a pretrial detainee at the Baldwin jail. On appeal, plaintiff argues that Sheriff Mack violated his substantive due process rights by confining him in an unsanitary and overcrowded cell. Defendant also argues that Sheriff Mack violated his procedural due process rights at his August 15, 2012, disciplinary hearing. The court concluded that plaintiff's allegations - that he was temporarily forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor near the toilet - are not enough to clearly establish that his conditions of confinement were unconstitutional. The court also concluded that, although plaintiff was entitled to the due process hearing he received before being punished for his misconduct while in jail, plaintiff failed to overcome Sheriff Mack’s qualified immunity defense on either of his claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Jacoby v. Baldwin County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against NBCal regarding a payday loan she acquired in 2013. On appeal, NBCal challenges the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration under the loan agreement. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement’s forum selection clause mandates the use of an illusory and unavailable arbitral forum. Because neither party disputes that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe( CRST) forum is unavailable, the court agreed with the district court that it cannot enforce the delegation clause or the underlying arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order. View "Parm v. National Bank of CA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a retired criminal investigator with the Cobb Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, filed suit against the county, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex after he learned that a less-experienced female in the office was earning a substantially higher salary for the same job. The district court granted summary judgment to the county. The court affirmed, concluding that the county is a legally separate and distinct entity that did not control the fundamental aspects of the employment relationship between the office of the District Attorney and its criminal investigators, nor did it act as a joint employer with the District Attorney. Because its role as paymaster is wholly insufficient to establish that the county was plaintiff's employer, he could not sue the county under the federal antidiscrimination laws. View "Peppers v. Cobb County" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug-related charges and then appealed his 60-month sentence. Defendant contends that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to recommend a reduction for acceptance of responsibility at sentencing. The court agreed and concluded that defendant was induced to plead guilty to all charges against him based, in part, on the promise that the government would recommend the reduction on his behalf. The government not only failed to recommend the reduction at sentencing, but also objected to and argued against defendant receiving the reduction based on facts it knew prior to offering the plea deal. Because this conduct constitutes a breach of the agreement entered into by the parties, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Hunter" on Justia Law