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

Petitioner appealed the denial of his habeas petition without holding an evidentiary hearing, challenging the adequacy of the Alabama court's fact-finding procedure on collateral review. Petitioner alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Applying Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254, deference, the court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the state court's fact-finding methods in this case were so deficient as to render its factual determinations unreasonable. The court could not say that making a credibility determination on the basis of conflicting affidavits in this case was objectively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Landers v. Warden" on Justia Law

Iberiabank appealed the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's order that Iberiabank's claims against Bradford Geisen, president and 100% shareholder of FFS, were released. The court concluded that section 8.13 of the bankruptcy reorganization plan of FFS is a general release of all claims against Geisen which include claims arising out of his personal guaranty of the loan at issue. The court rejected Iberiabank's request for the court to follow cases from the Fifth Circuit to conclude that the release in section 8.13 is not sufficiently specific to have res judicata effect. The court concluded that under principles of contract interpretation, the confirmed plan contained a "general release" that released claims based on Geisen's guaranty of the loan. As in In re Optical, this case is not truly about res judicata, but, rather, the interpretation of a reorganization plan. Even if the court were to apply the Fifth Circuit's test, the court would conclude that the release was sufficiently specific to release Geisen. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Iberiabank v. Geisen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against Zenith after Santana Morales, Jr. was crushed to death by a palm tree while working as a landscaper for Lawns. The Florida Supreme Court answered the following certified questions in the affirmative: (1) Does the estate have standing to bring its breach of contract claim against Zenith under the employer liability policy? (2) If so, does the provision in the employer liability policy which excludes from coverage "any obligation imposed by workers' compensation... law" operate to exclude coverage of the estate's claim against Zenith for the tort judgment? and (3) If the estate's claim is not barred by the workers' compensation exclusion, does the release in the workers' compensation settlement agreement otherwise prohibit the estate's collection of the tort judgment? The court concluded that, given the Florida Supreme Court's resolution of the certified issues, the district court correctly determined that the workers' compensation exclusion in Part II of the policy barred Zenith's coverage of the tort judgment against Lawns. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Zenith. View "Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the limitations period equitably tolled because his untimely filing was due to his attorney's failure to ascertain the deadline by which his petition was due. The court concluded that petitioner's attorney's incomplete and inadequate attempts to ascertain the deadline constituted negligence, but did not rise to the level of "extraordinary circumstances" as to merit equitable tolling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the petition as time-barred. View "Damren v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of drug trafficking and possession charges. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order granting in part and denying in part his motion for a new trial. The court dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction where, under United States v. Wilson and In re United States, the pending charge against defendant prevents the court from hearing his appeal at this point in the proceedings. The court noted that if it were writing on a clean slate, it would conclude that the district court's order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for a new trial finally and irreparably affected defendant's rights as to Count 1 and 4 and his convictions on those counts constituted separate cases which were brought to a conclusion by sentencing. However, like the panel In re United States, the court is not at liberty to so hold. View "United States v. Myrie" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants Joseph T. Cameron and Dow Chemical for injuries that Cameron allegedly inflicted on plaintiff while Cameron was acting within the course of his employment for Dow. Cameron was operating a car within the course and scope of his employment when the car hit plaintiff, who was riding her bicycle. The district court subsequently granted plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice so that plaintiff could, under Georgia law, refile in six months and thereby overcome defendants' claim that plaintiff had failed to timely perfect service. Defendants appealed. The court concluded that it is unlikely that defendants had a meritorious statute-of-limitations defense in the first place. Even if defendants did, in view of the equities, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2). View "Arias v. Cameron" on Justia Law

LabMD appealed the district court's dismissal of its challenges to the FTC's ability to regulate and conduct enforcement proceedings in the area of healthcare data privacy, arguing that the FTC's enforcement action violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 704; is ultra vires; and is unconstitutional. The court held that the FTC's order denying LabMD's motion to dismiss was not a "final agency action," as required of claims made under the APA and, therefore, those claims were properly dismissed. The court also concluded that LabMD's other claims are intertwined with its APA claim for relief and may only be heard at the end of the administrative hearing. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "LabMD, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Relator filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, alleging that healthcare clinics provided, and the Humana defendants either knew of or promoted, a variety of free services for patients and health plan members. Relator alleged that the clinics offered such services without regard for medical purpose or financial need and that the value of the services is more than nominal. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice where, under the prior or amended version of section 3730 of the FCA, relator cannot overcome the public disclosure bar. View "Osheroff v. Humana Inc." on Justia Law

These six consolidated appeals arose out of a Congressional exemption from taxation granted to the federal entities. Appellants contend that the state taxes normally imposed on real estate transfers apply when the federal entities transfer real property in their respective states. The federal entities have not paid the transfer taxes based on their Congressional charter exemptions from "all taxation." The district courts found that the statutory exemptions do apply to preclude taxation and are constitutional. The district court also found that statutory exceptions for taxation of real property contained in the federal statutes did not apply to allow appellants to impose the transfer tax. The court affirmed and agreed with its sister circuits, who have held that the charter exemptions do apply in this context, and are constitutional under the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Supremacy Clauses. View "Montgomery Cnty. Comm'n v. FHFA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against TitleMax for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 216(b). The court held that if an employer knew or had reason to know that its employee underreported his hours, it cannot escape FLSA liability by asserting equitable defenses based on that underreporting. To hold otherwise would allow an employer to wield its superior bargaining power to pressure or even compel its employees to underreport their work hours, thus neutering the FLSA's purposeful reallocation of that power. In this case, plaintiff has worked overtime without pay and TitleMax knew or should have known he worked overtime where plaintiff's supervisor both encouraged artificially low reporting and squelched truthful timekeeping. The district court erred in applying equitable defenses based on plaintiff's misconduct to totally and entirely bar his FLSA claim. When the district court did this, it went beyond what the Supreme Court approved in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., thereby interfering with the FLSA's statutory scheme. Accordingly, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of TitleMax and remanded. View "Bailey v. TitleMax of Georgia, Inc." on Justia Law