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

Defendant appealed his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm and an armed career criminal. Police had discovered firearms while arresting defendant on a writ of bodily attachment. At issue is a question of first impression: Can the police arrest someone based solely on a civil writ of bodily attachment for unpaid child support?The court concluded that writ of bodily attachment are “Warrants” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. IV, so the officer found the firearm during a valid search incident to arrest. The court also concluded that defendant's argument that he does not qualify for the 15-year mandatory minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), are both waived and foreclosed by precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

In 1982, the district court entered a consent decree requiring the City of Jacksonville to hire in its fire department “an equal number of blacks and whites until the ratio of black fire fighters to white fire fighters reflects the ratio of black citizens to white citizens in the City of Jacksonville.” The City stopped complying with the decree in 1992. Plaintiffs filed suit in 2007, fifteen years after the City had stop complying with the decree, seeking a motion to show cause as to why the City should not be held in contempt of the 1982 consent decree. The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion on grounds of laches, and dissolved the decree. The court concluded that, because plaintiffs’ fifteen-year delay prejudiced the City’s ability to defend itself and because a new lawsuit had taken up the cause of fighting racial discrimination in the City’s firefighting department, neither the district court’s application of laches nor its dissolution of the 1982 consent decree was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Coffey v. Braddy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an African-American male and licensed, board-certified general surgeon and a specialist, filed suit alleging claims for race discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court granted defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the federal claims. The court held that plaintiff pled sufficient facts to support his section 1981 discrimination claim. In this case, plaintiff alleged that he was retaliated against by Grady and the Hospital Authority because of his opposition to discriminatory practices, which included subjecting him and other African-American physicians to limited surgery facilities and support staff and the assignment of certain medical cases to white doctors. Accordingly, the court reversed as to this claim. The court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss as to the section 1981 discrimination claim. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Moore v. Grady Memorial Hosp. Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. Defendants, all city officials, terminated plaintiff from his position as City manager after he reported to law enforcement and other agencies defendants' misconduct and made public disclosures about the same. The district court denied appellants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. The court concluded that plaintiff pled a plausible First Amendment claim that he spoke as a citizen and not pursuant to his ordinary job duties as City Manager when he made reports to law enforcement and other agencies about city officials' violations of Florida’s campaign finance laws. As to plaintiff's other claims, the court concluded that plaintiff's poorly-drafted complaint does not state plausible claims that he spoke as a citizen and not pursuant to ordinary job responsibilities. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to the district court to afford plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint. View "Carollo v. Boria" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the EPA and the Corps' joint promulgation of the Clean Water Rule, which defines the term “Waters of the United States” for purposes of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. The district court subsequently denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that 33 U.S.C. 1369(b)(1) gives courts of appeals exclusive original jurisdiction over challenges to the rule. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiffs in this case also filed in this court what they termed a “protective” petition for direct review of their Clean Water Rule challenge. The court concluded that, because of the Sixth Circuit’s nationwide stay of the Clean Water Rule, those opposing the rule are not being harmed by it in the interim. And, if the Sixth Circuit holds that the rule is invalid, that will end the matter, subject (as all panel decisions are) to the possibility of en banc and certiorari review. In any event, the decision of that court will likely narrow and refine, if not render moot, at least some of the issues this court asked the parties to brief. For all of these reasons, the court exercised its discretion to stay its hand in this case pending a decision of the Sixth Circuit or further developments. Accordingly, the court held the appeal in abeyance and ordered the district court to stay all further proceedings. View "State of Georgia v. McCarthey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., seeking benefits for continued partial hospital treatment for her anorexia, which were denied on the ground that the level of care she sought was not medically necessary. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for Oxford. After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, the record in the case, and with the benefit of oral argument presented to the court, the court concluded that the district court correctly decided that the record of the external review is properly before the district court in this ERISA case. However, the court concluded that the district court erred in holding that the adverse external review decision barred plaintiff from presenting her challenge to the adverse medical necessity determination. Because the external review process does not conflict with ERISA, it is not preempted. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Alexandra H. v. Oxford Health Ins." on Justia Law

After plaintiff, an ordained minister, obstructed a police investigation and resisted arrest in a city park, he was arrested and issued a “trespass warning” under City Ordinance 20-30, which prohibited him from re-entering the park for one year. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that section 20-30 violates the First Amendment because it prevented him from re-entering the park to exercise his First Amendment rights. The court rejected plaintiff's contention, concluding that the city did not inevitably single him out based on his expressive activity, and he did not receive his trespass warning because he was engaged in expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court also concluded that section 20-30(g) of the ordinance is not an unlawful prior restraint on speech; it actually permits more speech, not less. View "Wright v. City of St. Petersburg" on Justia Law

Defendants Farha, Behrens, Kale, and Clay appeal their convictions for charges related to Medicaid fraud on multiple grounds. Defendants were all high-level executives of WellCare or one of its Florida subsidiaries, Staywell and HealthEase. At trial, the government proved that together defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme to file false Medicaid expense reports that misrepresented and overstated the amounts Staywell and HealthEase spent on medical services for Medicaid patients, specifically outpatient behavioral health care services. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict Farha, Behrens, and Kale for health care fraud; there was sufficient evidence to convict Behrens for making false representations to AHCA; and there was sufficient evidence to convict Clay for making false statements to federal agents. The court rejected Farha, Behrens, and Kale's challenge to the jury instructions with regard to their fraud convictions. Finally, the court rejected defendants' claims of evidentiary error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Clay" on Justia Law

After confirmation of debtor's Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, he received notice that his work-related travel reimbursement would be withheld at the request of the DOR for the payment of a domestic support obligation (DSO). Because the DOR attempted to intercept a payment to debtor after confirmation of his plan, the bankruptcy court found the DOR in contempt for violating the bankruptcy court’s confirmation order and awarded attorney’s fees to debtor as a result. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order of contempt and award of attorney’s fees. This case involves the interplay between two sections of the Bankruptcy Code: 11 U.S.C. 362 and 1327. The court concluded that, while the text of section 326(b)(2)(C) appears to permit DSO collection efforts post-petition, the legislative history lacks any suggestion that Congress intended the exception to abrogate the binding effect of section 1327(a). Rather, a plain reading of section 1327(a) makes clear that the binding effect of a confirmed plan encompasses all issues that could have been litigated in debtor's case - including whether the DOR could intercept debtor's reimbursement payment. Accordingly, because debtor's plan fell silent on the issue of whether the DOR could intercept debtor's reimbursement payment, the DOR was prohibited from taking such action. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "FL Dep't of Revenue v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

In the aftermath of Bernard Madoff's arrrest, the district court appointed a trustee for the liquidation of BLMIS, Madoff's investment advisory business. Several class actions were filed against JPMorgan by customers who directly had capital invested with BLMIS. JPMorgan entered a global resolution on January 6, 2014, involving three settlements. This putative class action seeks to hold liable JPMorgan and two JPMorgan employees: John Hogan, who served as Chief Risk Officer and later Chairman of Risk for JPMorgan, and Richard Cassa, who served as Client Relationship Manager for one of Madoff’s accounts. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that appellants' Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78t(a), claim was untimely and that appellants' federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, claim was barred by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). View "Dusek v. JPMorgan Chase & Co." on Justia Law