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

Rapper and philanthropist Prakazrel Michel, and founding member of the Fugees, filed a defamation suit alleging that an article published about him in the New York Post's Page Six gossip column claimed that he failed to perform as expected as the headliner at a 9/11 charity event for the Hope for Them Foundation with which he was purportedly affiliated. Michel contends that the article defamed him because he had no connection to the Foundation and had not been scheduled to perform at the event. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice. This court also dismissed the complaint, but for different reasons. The court concluded that the article is not privileged against a defamation action because a reasonable reader of the article would have concluded that it presented statements of fact (not just nonactionable opinion). However, Michel has failed to state a claim because he did not adequately plead facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that defendants published the article with actual malice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal but entered the dismissal without prejudice, giving leave to amend. View "Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The court originally remanded this case to the district court for additional fact-finding to establish complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants with instructions to reenter summary judgment if federal subject-matter jurisdiction could be properly established. After dismissing a nondiverse plaintiff it found was not a real party in interest to this case, the district court reentered its earlier grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer on all claims. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of PMI Delaware and its grant of summary judgment to Lexington. The court concluded that the district court's dismissal of PMI Delaware pursuant to FRCP 21 as a "nominal or formal party" was proper because the district court found that though PMI Delaware was a named insured on the Insurance Policy, PMI Delaware would not be entitled to any portion of a successful judgment against Lexington because PMI Florida, not PMI Delaware, was the party against whom Blue Cross had filed suit and PMI Florida, not PMI Delaware, was the only party that made a claim for coverage to Lexington. Further, PMI Delaware was not even a party to the underlying Blue Cross contract, which provided healthcare coverage only to PMI Florida’s leased employees. Further, the court affirmed the district court's holding that Lexington owed no coverage to PMI Florida. Here, the court saw no contractual ambiguity; the Insurance Policy issued by Lexington explicitly excludes the coverage sought by PMI Florida. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Lexington on PMI Florida’s claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. Finally, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Lexington on its claim of negligent misrepresentation where no jury could reasonably find that Yoohoo justifiably relied on the statement at issue as an indication that there would be coverage under the policy. View "Payroll Mgmt., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the assignee of his mortgage after his servicer failed to provide a payoff balance. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1641(e)(1)(A), creates a cause of action against an assignee for a violation that is “apparent on the face of the disclosure statement provided in connection with [a mortgage] transaction pursuant to this subchapter.” The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint because the failure to provide a payoff balance is not a violation apparent on the face of the disclosure statement. View "Evanto v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and subseuqently appealed his sentence of 120 months in prison. The district court determined that a sentence within the guideline range would not adequately reflect defendant's criminal history and would not provide adequate deterrence or promote sufficient respect for the law. The court concluded that the district court's sentence is substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including the fact that defendant engaged in a life of crime, with a staggering 20 convictions. The district court reasonably concluded that defendant's guideline range understated his criminal history, and defendant's repeated acts of violence against women and law-enforcement officers and his return trips to jail also support the conclusion that a lengthy sentence was necessary to promote deterrence and respect for the law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Osorio-Moreno" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Stiefel Labs and its president, Charles Stiefel, on several grounds, including a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. Plaintiff requested that the jury instructions, in order to prevail on a claim under Rule 10b-5(b), require plaintiff to prove only that defendants failed to disclose material information. The district court refused to include the jury instruction. The court concluded that plaintiff's jury instruction misstated the law because Rule 10b-5(b) does not prohibit a mere failure to disclose material information. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fried v. Stiefel Labs., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a federal inmate, filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2680, alleging that a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) official withheld wages he was owed for his work while incarcerated. Plaintiff also filed related claims of discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court concluded that the record shows that BOP regulations allowed no discretion to refuse to pay the wages at that stage and that the refusal was not grounded in policy. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the claim on the basis of the pleading allegations. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment in regards to the pay claim. The court affirmed as to the other claims. View "Douglas v. United States" on Justia Law

The court vacated its order on January 20, 2016, and replaced it with this order. Petitioner filed a pro se application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. Petitioner's application relies in part on the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States. The court recently granted certiorari in Welch v. United States. The court recognizes that it will likely take the Supreme Court longer than 30 days from now to decide Welch. The court joined its sister circuits and held that this 30-day timeframe is not mandatory in all circumstances. Therefore, the court held petitioner's application in abeyance, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Welch. View "In re: Anthony Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of videotaping his teenage stepdaughter performing her daily bathroom routine, without her knowing it, over a period of five months. On appeal, defendant challenged his convictions and sentences for one count of production or attempted production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B). The court joined the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits and held that a lascivious exhibition may be created by an individual who surreptitiously videos or photographs a minor and later captures or edits a depiction, even when the original depiction is one of an innocent child acting innocently. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could have found that defendant’s conduct - including placement of the cameras in the bathroom where his stepdaughter was most likely to be videoed while nude, his extensive focus on videoing and capturing images of her pubic area, the angle of the camera set up, and his editing of the videos at issue - was sufficient to create a lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought review of defendants' denial of plaintiff's application for naturalization under 8 U.S.C. 1421(c). The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court concluded that plaintiff cannot establish that he was lawfully admitted for permanent residence because he was a crewman when he entered the United States. Consequently, plaintiff does not meet the statutory requirements for naturalization under section 1427(a). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. View "Reganit v. Secretary, DHS" on Justia Law

Twenty-one months after plaintiff filed an employment discrimination case against US Steel, she filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. When U.S. Steel learned of the bankruptcy case - that plaintiff's Chapter 7 petition had not disclosed the employment-discrimination claims she was pursuing and that the Chapter 7 Trustee was treating the bankruptcy as a “no asset” case and had filed a Report of No Distribution with the bankruptcy court - it moved the district court alternatively to dismiss the case or for summary judgment. The district court concluded that the doctrine of judicial estoppel as formulated in Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., and Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., controlled its decision. The court concluded that New Hampshire v. Maine did not govern the district court's application of judicial estoppel in this case. Therefore, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the district court erred in failing to give the New Hampshire factors appropriate weight and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring her claims on the basis of judicial estoppel. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not err in applying Eleventh Circuit precedent, namely Burnes and Robinson, where the bankruptcy court in those cases accepted the debtor's failure to disclose as property of the bankruptcy estate claims the debtor was litigating in federal district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Slater v. US Steel Corp." on Justia Law