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

Plaintiff filed suit against Phillip Morris after her husband's death, alleging claims of fraudulent concealment, conspiracy, negligence, and strict liability under Florida law. The jury found Phillip Morris comparatively liable for the husband's injuries and death but awarded plaintiff no damages. Plaintiff argued to the district court that the verdict was inconsistent with liability and that the jury did not follow the district court's instructions. The district court denied plaintiff's request and then plaintiff moved for a mistrial based on the same reasons. The district court denied the motion. The court held that a party’s post-trial claim that a jury verdict is inconsistent does not preserve for appeal the separate and legally distinct claim that the verdict was the result of an unlawful jury compromise. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, as well as the final judgment entered on the jury's verdict. View "Reider v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a wood manufacturer, alleging that wood he bought for a fence at his home was not properly pressure-treated and that it prematurely rotted. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ala. Code 8-19-5(5), (7), and for breach of express warranty. The court held that where a conflict exists between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which authorizes class actions including for consumer claims of this kind, and the ADTPA, which creates a private right of action but forbids private class actions, Rule 23 controls. The court also concluded that Alabama law allows a consumer to recover for breach of an express warranty, even in the absence of privity, in some circumstances. In this case, the court held that the complaint adequately alleges the required circumstances and thus states an express warranty claim on which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office deputies and the Sheriff's Office, alleging that deputies shot, tasered, and beat him in his own bedroom without warning or provocation during their response to a "Baker Act call." The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed plaintiff's count one and count three claims against the deputies on the ground that those counts did not comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b) where these two counts are informative enough to permit a court to readily determine if they state a claim which relief can be granted. The court reversed the part of the district court’s judgment dismissing count one of plaintiff's third amended complaint; reversed the part of the judgment dismissing count three as to the deputies; and affirmed the dismissal of count three as to the Sheriff’s Office and the dismissal of counts two, four, six, and seven in their entirety. Finally, the court vacated the part of the district court's order remanding count five to state court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for their participation in a scheme were defendants made secret payments to the general manager of Glades Utility Services who began directing utility subcontracts to Ener-Phase Electric, a company that defendants owned. The court concluded that, under Skilling v. United States, defendants' conduct constituted honest-services fraud if they participated in a classic kickback scheme. However, if the scheme involved an egregious conflict of interest but no kickback, then there is no honest-services fraud. In this case, the court vacated the honest-services convictions because the jury instructions would have allowed a conviction on either view of the evidence. The court also vacated the other convictions that depend on the honest-services fraud conviction. The court upheld convictions for structuring financial transactions not dependent on the honest-services convictions. View "United States v. Aunspaugh" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Florida public school teachers, filed suit challenging Florida’s Student Success Act, Fla. Stat. 1012.34, as well as the Florida State Board of Education’s and three school districts’ implementation of the Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff alleged that the Act resulted in teacher evaluation policies that violated the teachers’ rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Determining that plaintiffs have standing and the case is not moot, the court concluded that, under rational basis review, the school district's evaluation policies are rationally related to the purpose of improving student academic performance. Therefore, plaintiffs substantive due process and equal protection claims failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Cook v. Chartrand" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, parents of a child with autism and speech and language disabilities, filed suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400–1482, seeking payment for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of the child to determine his educational needs. The district court dismissed the parents' complaint, holding that the parents' request in the state administrative proceeding was time-barred. Because a reevaluation of the child is due, the relief the parents seek - an order directing the District to pay for an IEE - will no longer redress the procedural injury they allege. Because the parents lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the appeal, their appeal is moot. Accordingly, the court vacated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded. View "T.P. v. Bryan Cnty. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, debt-collection attorneys for non-party Publix, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim. At issue was whether representations made by an attorney in court filings during the course of debt-collection litigation are actionable under the FDCPA. The court found that the plain language of the FDCPA, other persuasive decisions interpreting that language, and the purpose underlying the Act mandate a finding that the FDCPA applies to attorneys, like defendants, who regularly engage in debt collection activity, even when that activity includes litigation and even when the attorneys’ conduct is directed at someone other than the consumer. The court further concluded that absent a statutory exception, documents filed in court in the course of judicial proceedings to collect on a debt, like defendants' sworn reply, are subject to the FDCPA. However, because the court agreed with the district court’s finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim under the FDCPA, the court affirmed the dismissal of his complaint. View "Miljkovic v. Shafritz and Dinkin, P.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, and unjust enrichment. Because this appeal depends on the resolution of an unsettled issue of Delaware law, the court certified the following question to the Delaware Supreme Court: Does the diminution in the value of a limited liability company, which serves as a feeder fund in a limited partnership, provide the basis for an investor’s direct suit against the general partners when the company and the partnership allocate losses to investors’ individual capital accounts and do not issue transferable shares and losses are shared by investors in proportion to their investments? View "Culverhouse v. Paulson & Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff pleaded guilty to producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, contending that section 2251(a), both facially and as applied, is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because it does not require the government to prove that a defendant knew that his victim was a minor. The court concluded that none of the arguments that defendant makes in support of his contention that section 2251(a) is facially unconstitutional can pass the “no set of circumstances” test for facial challenges. In regard to defendant's as-applied challenge, the court concluded that it has now doubt that a person of ordinary intelligence would know, upon reading section 2251(a), that it prohibits persuading a 15-year-old to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of photographing her with a cell phone camera that has traveled in foreign commerce. The court also had no reason to think that section 2251(a) authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement. Therefore, defendant's vagueness challenge, like his other challenges, lack merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ruggiero" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq. While the appeals were pending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Tibble v. Edison International, which held that a plaintiff can effectively allege that a defendant breached its duty of prudence under ERISA "by failing to properly monitor investments and remove imprudent ones[,] . . . [and] so long as the alleged breach of the continuing duty occurred within six years of suit, the claim is timely." The parties agreed that these cases should be remanded in light of Tibble. The court agreed and therefore vacated the judgments and remanded for further proceedings. The court declined to reassign the case to a new district judge. View "Pruitt v. Suntrust Banks, Inc." on Justia Law