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

Kawa filed suit challenging the Treasury's decision to postpone the enforcement of the employer mandate provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 26 U.S.C. 4980H, and sought a declaratory judgment and injunction setting aside the Treasury's transition relief. Kawa had expended time and money to determine how to comply with the employer mandate between early 2013 and the end of June 2013. After Kawa incurred these expenses, the Treasury announced it would not enforce the mandate for a transition period of one year - until the end of 2014. The Treasury then extended the transition relief for certain employers, including Kawa, for a second year. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint because Kawa lacked Article III standing where Kawa failed to allege an injury in fact, a causal connection, and a likelihood of success. View "Kawa Orthodontics, LLP v. Secretary, U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in Florida state court against BLP, alleging that BLP sent unsolicited faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), and its implementing regulations. BLP removed to federal court and BLP served each named plaintiff an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. BLP then moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the unaccepted Rule 68 offers rendered the case moot. The court concluded that a plaintiff's individual claim is not mooted by an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment, and a proffer that moots a named plaintiff's individual claim does not moot a class action in circumstances like those presented in this case, even if the proffer comes before the plaintiff has moved to certify the class. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the action. View "Jeffrey M. Stein D.D.S., et al. v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against MetLife, the administrator of a long-term disability insurance plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., seeking to recover disability benefits. The court concluded that the six-year limitations period began to run on plaintiff's ERISA claim when the cause of action accrues; plaintiff's ERISA complaint in 2012 for benefits from May 1, 1997 forward is time-barred; the court rejected plaintiff's argument that his submission of post-1997 documentation is a new claim for benefits; and MetLife did not waive any defense based on the statute of limitations by failing to specify untimeliness as a basis for denying the claim after its courtesy review. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Witt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was committed to the custody of the Alabama State Department of Mental Health in 2012. In 2013, a federal grand jury indicted defendant for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), which criminalizes the possession of a firearm by any person "who has been committed to a mental institution." The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment where defendant was afforded the formal process required by Ala. Code 22-52-1 et seq. when he was formally committed under Ala. Code 22-52-10.1, and it was not an emergency hospitalization under Ala. Code 22-52.7. View "United States v. McIlwain" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to eight counts of possession and receipt of child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged his 240-month sentence. Among other things, defendant obsessed with neighborhood children and had an escalating interest in the sexual molestation, murder, and cannibalism of children. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse his discretion considering the totality of the circumstances and giving due deference to the judge's determination that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors justified the upward variance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. The court reversed for the limited purpose of correcting a scrivener's error. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court for further proceedings regarding a sovereign immunity issue, the court reviewed the district court's conclusion that plaintiff's official-capacity claim against the former president of CACC for equitable relief was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In this case, plaintiff seeks equitable relief in the form of reinstatement of his employment and such relief falls within the scope of the Ex parte Young exception and is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In light of the court's reinstatement precedents, the court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's official-capacity claim against the president as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. View "Lane v. Central Alabama Community College, et al." on Justia Law

BMI and others filed a copyright infringement action against Evie's Tavern and its owner (collectively, appellants), alleging that appellants publicly performed six copyrighted works without a license despite numerous cease and desist letters and phone calls. On appeal, appellants challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment and contend that there are material issues of fact in the chain of title for each of the five titles at issue. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment in BMI's favor on each of the five titles at issue; because the district court properly granted summary judgment in BMI's favor on each title, any error in granting summary judgment to other appellees was harmless; the district court did not need to make a finding as to whether appellants' infringement was innocent or willful to grant summary judgment or to award statutory damages within the default range; the district court's decision considered all of the appropriate factors, its damages determination was plausible, and thus the award of statutory damages was not an abuse of discretion; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the award of attorneys' fees; and the district court adequately evaluated the eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. factors and it did not clearly err in awarding a permanent injunction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and award of damages, attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction. View "Broadcast Music, Inc., et al. v. Evie's Tavern Ellenton, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a Georgia post-judgment garnishment statute. Plaintiff obtained funds from a workers' compensation settlement after suffering a permanent disability on the job. Plaintiff also received Social Security disability payments. One of plaintiff's creditors issued a garnishment summons that resulted in the freezing of plaintiff's worker's compensation funds for four months before plaintiff's creditor finally conceded that plaintiff's funds were exempt from garnishment and agreed to the dissolution of the hold on his funds. The court concluded that plaintiff had Article III standing and that his claim is not moot. The court declined to pass on the constitutionality of Georgia's post-judgment garnishment statute before ensuring that all interested parties have had notice and a chance to present all evidence and argument, and the district court has had an opportunity to examine and consider that evidence and argument on the merits. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff's suit for lack of standing and remanded, because it was substantially likely that plaintiff and his wife's exempt funds will soon be the subject of a garnishment summons again. View "Strickland v. Alexander, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the Tax Court's final order and decision for redetermination of deficiency brought under 26 U.S.C. 6213(a), arguing that the Tax Court erred by concluding that the $5.75 million petitioner received from the assignment of his position as plaintiff in a lawsuit constituted taxable ordinary income, rather than long term capital gains. The court held that the profit from the $5.75 million petitioner received in the sale of his position in the lawsuit is more appropriately characterized as capital gains. Therefore, the court reversed the Tax Court's decision as to this issue and remanded with instructions. The court rejected petitioner's argument that the Tax Court erred by not treating his $600,00 payment to Steelervest as a deductible "reduction of income" where petitioner has not met his burden of clearly establishing his entitlement to a particular deduction. Therefore, the court affirmed the Tax Court's decision as to this issue. Finally, because petitioner's evidence of unaccounted legal fees was insufficient and petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of a deductible expense, the court affirmed the Tax Court's decision on this issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding with instructions for further proceedings. View "Long v. Commissioner of IRS" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition. The court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court's conclusion that trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to compartmentalize petitioner's experts is well within the bounds of reasonableness under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), and petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court also concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington where there is not a reasonable probability that investigating and presenting evidence of petitioner's XYY genetic abnormality would have led to a different result; where counsel failed to present the testimony of a mental health expert and provide the expert with a videotape of petitioner's testimony; and where counsel failed to present additional mitigating witnesses. The court also rejected petitioner's Brady claim where petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result of his proceeding would have been different had the jury heard about his XYY abnormality. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Tanzi v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law