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

Humana filed suit against Western, alleging claims for double damages pursuant to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP), 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(3)(A), private cause of action and for a declaratory judgment regarding Western’s obligation to reimburse Humana for Medicare benefits that Humana paid on behalf of its Medicare Advantage plan enrollee. The district court granted summary judgment to Humana. At issue, as a matter of first impression, is whether the MSP private cause of action permits a Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) to sue a primary payer that refuses to reimburse the MAO for a secondary payment. The court joined the Third Circuit and held that an MAO may sue a primary payer under the MSP private cause of action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Humana Medical Plan v. Western Heritage Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the County after he suffered injuries while aboard a vessel traveling in the Coral Park Canal, a drainage canal in the County. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. At issue is whether a canal is navigable for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1333, if an artificial obstruction prevents vessels from using the canal to conduct interstate commerce. Because the Coral Park Canal cannot support interstate commerce, the court concluded that it cannot satisfy the location requirement of admiralty jurisdiction. The court concluded that extending jurisdiction to waters incapable of commercial activity serves no purpose of admiralty jurisdiction. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's injuries did not occur on navigable waters for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction because an artificial obstruction prevents vessels from traveling from the Coral Park Canal to places outside of Florida. View "Tundidor v. Miami-Dade County" on Justia Law

In 2003, the Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes, establishing a notice and repair process to resolve construction disputes between property owners and contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, or design professionals. At issue is whether Chapter 558’s statutorily prescribed notice and repair process constitutes a “suit” under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy, so as to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend. The court concluded that it would be greatly benefited from the guidance of the Florida Supreme Court on the meaning of the policy language at issue here and its relationship to Chapter 558. Accordingly, the court certified the following question of law to that court: Is the notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes a “suit” within the meaning of the CGL policies issued by C&F to ACI? View "Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks authorization to file a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States. Petitioner was sentenced under 18 U.S.C. 924(c), which requires a longer prison sentence whenever a defendant uses a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. Petitioner contends that the residual clause of section 924(c) is unconstitutional in light of Johnson. The court recently ruled that Johnson's holding may invalidate the "very similar" section 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause. The court recognized, at the same time, that the law is unsettled on this question and left it to the district court to decide in the first instance what effect Johnson had on section 924(c)'s residual clause. The court concluded that when petitioner's section 2255 motion is filed in the district court, the district court should hear from the parties and apply the law to the facts as it thinks best. Accordingly, the court granted the petition. View "In Re: Devon Chance" on Justia Law

The City enacted into law several provisions that, inter alia, prohibit the commercial distribution of sexual devices within the City. Plaintiffs and intervenors brought, in relevant part, a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause challenge to Ordinance 2009-04-24, codified at section 38-120 of the City’s Code of Ordinances. The district court granted the City’s motion and entered an order upholding the Ordinance against each challenge. The court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause claim is foreclosed by the court's prior holding in Williams v. Attorney General (Williams IV), and the district court properly entered judgment on the pleadings for the City as to Intervenor-Appellant Henry’s First Amendment claims that the law burdens his artistic expression. The district court committed no reversible error as to any other claim properly raised on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Flanigan's Enter. v. City of Sandy Springs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of her minor son D.H., filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against school officials, including Assistant Principal Tyrus McDowell, and others, alleging that defendants deprived D.H. of his rights to privacy, to be secure in his person, and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. On appeal, McDowell challenged the district court’s interlocutory order denying his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court found that McDowell’s strip search of D.H., a minor student, violated clearly established constitutional law. The court concluded that McDowell violated D.H.'s constitutional rights. Furthermore, a reasonable official in McDowell’s position would not have believed that requiring D.H. to strip down to his fully naked body in front of several of his peers was lawful in light of the clearly established principle that a student strip search, even if justified in its inception, must be “reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of McDowell’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. View "D. H. v. McDowell" on Justia Law

After Cooks terminated him, plaintiff filed suit against the company, alleging claims under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301, 4302(b), and Alabama state law. The district court entered an order striking from the arbitration agreement two terms that violated USERRA, dismissing the suit without prejudice, and ordering plaintiff to submit his claims to arbitration. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the district court erred by failing to apply the plain language of USERRA’s non-waiver provision. The court concluded that the contract's arguable delegation clause - which would require that the arbitrator, rather than the court, determine whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable - does not control this appeal. The court also concluded that, in reaching whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable, section 4302(b) is not in conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1, 2, and the district court properly determined the arbitration agreement is enforceable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision to compel arbitration. View "Bodine v. Cook's Pest Control" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendants violated students' constitutional rights when they detained the students for breathalyzer tests prior to entering their Junior/Senior Prom. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court concluded that plaintiffs have not established an actual or reasonable expectation of privacy in the party bus, which they had abandoned once they had exited for the Prom; the bus driver had apparent authority to consent to search the party bus; and therefore, the search of the party bus did not violate plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights. The court also concluded that the initial waiting period for the breathalyzer mouthpieces and a trained individual to administer the breathalyzer tests was reasonable, because it was necessary for the testing; detaining a student after he or she was found to be alcohol free was not “reasonably related” to the reason for the detention “in the first place” of determining if the student passengers on the party bus had been drinking; the individual school defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no binding clearly established law at the time; and claims against the remaining defendants have been abandoned or have no merit. The court rejected plaintiffs' remaining claims. Because plaintiffs have not established that they should succeed on any of their allegations concerning their Fourth, First, and Fourteenth Amendment claims, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ziegler v. Martin Cnty. Sch. Bd." on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner asserts that his sentence, enhanced as a career offender under the residual clause of the Sentencing Guidelines, violates due process. Petitioner argued that his prior conviction for third-degree escape is no longer a predicate offense under the Guidelines because the residual clause is invalid in light of Johnson v. United States. The court held that section 2244(b)(1)'s mandate applies to applications for leave to file a second or successive section 2255 motion. The court also held that a prisoner may not file "what amounts to a motion for reconsideration under the guise of a separate and purportedly 'new' application" when the new application raises the same claim that was raised and rejected in the prior application. In this case, the court rejected petitioner's application because the claim in his instant application was raised and rejected on the merits in a prior application. Accordingly, the court denied the application. View "In re: Kiwanis Jones" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A). As an initial matter, the court denied In re Bradford's counseled motion to hold this counseled application in abeyance due to the grant of certiorari in Beckles v. United States. The court may also not consider petitioner's present Johnson v. United States claim for the simple reason that he raised that claim in his first application for certification, and section 2244 bars the court from considering claims that were raised on prior applications. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and denied petitioner's motion to hold the application in abeyance. View "In Re: Brad Bradley Bradford" on Justia Law