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

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

Petitioner, sentenced to death for murder, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that, although petitioner's failure-to-investigate claims were fairly presented in state court, they were not decided “on the merits” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). Therefore, the court vacated the district court’s order denying petitioner’s failure-to-investigate claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Williams v. State of Alabama" on Justia Law

Joshua Salvato's estate filed an excessive force suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for damages against a law enforcement officer in her individual capacity and the sheriff in his official capacity after Salvato was shot and killed by the officer following an attempt to arrest Salvato. The court concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Salvato, it is clearly established that the officer’s use of deadly force was excessive and that she should have intervened against the sheriff's use of excessive force. The court affirmed the denial of the officer's motion for qualified immunity and remanded for further proceedings. However, because the record contains no evidence that the officer’s violation of Salvato’s federal civil rights was attributable to the sheriff where a single failure to investigate an incident is insufficient to establish ratification, the court reversed the denial of the sheriff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and rendered a judgment in his favor on the claim of excessive force. View "Salvato v. Miley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against USAA, seeking to recover a portion of their insurance premium payments because they would have elected to pay for building ordinance and law (BOL) insurance covering only 25% of their home's value. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the dismissal of their complaint. The court agreed with the district court that the plain language of Florida Statutes 627.7011(2) does not require an insurer to obtain a policyholder’s written consent on a form approved by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation before issuing BOL coverage greater than 25%. Further, Florida Statutes 627.418(1) bars plaintiffs' suit because the only remedy available for providing extra insurance coverage is to enforce the contract as written. In this case, plaintiffs freely contracted to buy 50% coverage, that is exactly what they received, and no legal basis exists for reducing their premium payments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Allen v. U.S. Automobile Assoc." on Justia Law

After Dr. Paul B. Tartell and Dr. Lee M. Mandel split their practices, Dr. Mandel registered six domain names with variations of Dr. Tartell’s name. Dr. Tartell then filed a complaint against Dr. Mandel, his incorporated practice, and another corporation owned by Dr. Mandel for cybersquatting, false designation of origin, and unfair competition. The court concluded that the district court clearly erred by ruling that Dr. Tartell's name had acquired secondary meaning in the minds of consumers. Although Dr. Tartell produced some evidence relevant to the Conagra, Inc. v. Singleton factors, he failed to produce any substantial evidence of what his name denotes to the consumer; Dr. Tartell’s evidence about the use of his name in academic settings and evidence about his reputation among other medical professionals are not probative of whether his name had acquired secondary meaning; Dr. Tartell produced no substantial evidence to demonstrate the degree of actual recognition by the public; and Dr. Tartell’s remaining evidence says nothing about the perceptions of consumers. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered judgment in favor of Dr. Mandel and his corporations. View "Tartell v. South Florida Sinus and Allergy Ctr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted for molesting his daughter and her friend, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner argued that his trial counsel failed to proffer evidence that one of his alleged victims had falsely accused him of kidnapping and his attorney’s failure to perfect the record for appeal caused the Georgia Court of Appeals to decline to address the issue. The court denied defendant's motion to supplement the record and his alternative motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing. The court also concluded that the state habeas court did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington's prejudice prong. There is simply no evidence in the record of the fact of the prior false accusation or the testimony that cross-examination would have elicited which can be weighed on petitioner’s side to find there is a reasonable probability of a different result on appeal. Finally, petitioner's Confrontation Clause claims are procedurally barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "French v. Warden, Wilcox State Prison" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences for charges related to their involvement in one of the most long-lasting mortgage fraud conspiracies in the history of central Florida. The court reversed defendant Streinz's conviction and remanded for a new trial because his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the trial court's refusal to allow him to confer with counsel during the two overnight recesses while he was testifying. The court affirmed defendants Cavallo and Hornberger's convictions and sentences except that the court vacated and remanded that part of the judgment ordering restitution because the restitution amount does not take into account the value of the collateral properties to the victims and therefore does not represent the actual loss to the victims, but instead confers a windfall on them. View "United States v. Cavallo" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for charges related to his use of fraudulent checks. The court affirmed defendant’s convictions (Counts 1–5) for violating 18 U.S.C. 514 because they were supported by sufficient evidence; affirmed defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1029 because defendant's conduct falls outside of section 1029's narrow exception for transfers originating solely by paper instrument; and affirmed defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 3146 where, in situations where the defendant was released pending a hearing on a violation of supervised release, the “offense” referenced in section 3146(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) is the original conviction, as the period of supervised release is simply part of the sentence for the underlying conviction. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not err when interpreting the criminal statutes at issue and there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2011 and claimed numerous exemptions. At issue are debtor's requests for exemption for: (1) an annuity worth well over $150,000; and (2) the nearly $15,000 cash surrender value of a whole life insurance policy. The court affirmed the denial of both exemptions, concluding that Georgia Code 44-13-100(a)(9) does not violate equal protection where it is rationally related to the purpose of bankruptcy legislation and where Section 44-13-100(a)(9) does not violate the Bankruptcy Clause. A plain reading of 11 U.S.C. 522 does not, as debtor alleges, allow a bankruptcy debtor to use a state exemption statute where the state itself has rendered the statute inapplicable. Rather, very near the opposite is true; states have been authorized to define and restrict the applicability of their bankruptcy exemptions. View "McFarland v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit aircraft parts fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 38(a)(1)(C), (a)(3), and two substantive counts of aircraft parts fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 38(a)(1)(C), seven years after he committed the crimes. On appeal, defendant argued that the “hostilities” related to the “use of the Armed Forces” "terminat[ed]” over a decade ago, id., so the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, 18 U.S.C. 3287, does not toll the statute of limitations for his crimes. Defendant also argued that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted “other act” evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Because the plain language of the Act requires a Presidential proclamation or a concurrent resolution of Congress to end the tolling of the limitations period and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the “other act” evidence, the court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Frediana" on Justia Law