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

Defendant appealed the denial of his second motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The district court's jurisdiction was not limited by the strictures of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 after it entered its orders. The court concluded that any error on the part of the district court was harmless where defendant offered no justification to depart from this court's previous order affirming the district court's finding that Amendment 750 does not apply to reduce defendant's guidelines range because his conviction involved at least 15 kilograms of crack cocaine. The court held that this is the law of the case and it need not address the merits of defendant's claim any further. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Zaki filed suit against ANI for breach of contract and conversion, among other things, after ANI sold Zaki's aircraft parts without properly accounting for the sales proceeds, charging Zaki for inflated storage expenses, and failing to return the parts after Zaki terminated the consignment agreement. Zaki also requested an accounting. The court held that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to grant Zaki an accounting; the district court failed to recognize the fiduciary nature of the relationship between the parties alone constituted sufficient grounds for an accounting under Florida law and erroneously concluded that an action for damages afforded an adequate alternative; and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded. View "Zaki Kulaibee Establishment v. McFliker, et al." on Justia Law

After certification to the Supreme Court of Florida, the Supreme Court of Florida answered the following question in the affirmative: Does the Florida Virtual School’s statutory authority to “acquire, enjoy, use, and dispose of . . . trademarks and any licenses and other rights or interests thereunder or therein,” and the designation of its board of trustees as a “body corporate with all the powers of a body corporate and such authority as is needed for the proper operation and improvement of the Florida Virtual School,” necessarily include the authority to file an action to protect those trademarks? Given the Supreme Court of Florida's ruling, Florida Virtual School has the authority, and the standing, to file an action to protect its trademarks. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of Florida Virtual School's trademark infringement suit against K12 and K12 Florida, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Florida Virtual School v. K12, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, worker who helped build the new Marlins ballpark, filed suit alleging that the contractor who employed them failed to pay them the wages and overtime that they were entitled to receive under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 206. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that plaintiffs' failure to reiterate their unpaid-overtime-hours claim in the statement of claim document is not controlling where that document does not have the status of a pleading and is not an amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The existence of federal jurisdiction at the pleading stage is to be determined based on the contents of the complaint, applying the well-pleaded complaint rule. In this case, the unpaid-overtime-hours claim in Count I alleges that plaintiffs were not always paid time-and-a-half for hours beyond forty worked in a workweek but were instead paid their regular rate for some overtime hours and nothing at all for others. The court concluded that plaintiffs alleged a claim on the face of the complaint and reversed the judgment of the district court, remanding for further proceedings. View "Calderon, et al. v. Form Works/Baker JV, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine and subsequently moved to vacate his sentence for an alleged error in the application of the advisory guidelines. Defendant argued that an intervening Supreme Court decision, Begay v. United States, makes clear that the district court and this court erroneously classified him as a career offender based on a prior conviction for felony child abuse. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to vacate his sentence where he cannot collaterally attack his sentence based on a misapplication of the advisory guidelines. Defendant's sentence falls below the statutory maximum and his prior conviction for felony child abuse has not been vacated. Accordingly, defendant's sentence was and remains lawful. View "Spencer v. United States" on Justia Law

After his termination, plaintiff, a tenured university professor at Georgia Tech, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Georgia Tech's President and others. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The court concluded that plaintiff was afforded adequate procedural due process prior to revocation of his tenure and termination of his employment with Georgia Tech where the pre-termination procedures afforded plaintiff satisfied the established guidelines for minimum procedural due process. Plaintiff received prior, written notice of the charges against him, he presented argument and evidence on his own behalf, he had a right to appeal his termination to the Board of Regents, and he submitted a written appeal to the Board of Regents. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Laskar, Ph.D. v. Peterson, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose from contracts to purchase real estate. On appeal, Inlet Beach and others challenged the district court's order entering final judgment in favor of the FDIC-R. The court concluded that Inlet Beach's contract claims are barred by the Inlet Beach Contract's remedies limitation provision. Despite Inlet Beach's argument to the contrary, the remedies limitation provision does not lack mutuality and is therefore enforceable. The court affirmed the judgment as to that issue and also affirmed the district court's dismissal of the other claims. View "Inlet Beach Capital Investments LLC v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for his role in three murders, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court rejected petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective where he failed to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington because the state court reasonably concluded that additional expert testimony would not likely have led to the suppression of his confession, and because a reasonable state court could have rejected petitioner's argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to present all of the available evidence concerning his social history mitigation. The court rejected petitioner's Brady v. Maryland claim where petitioner cannot show prejudice because there is no reasonable probability that an eyewitness's testimony would have affected the outcome. Further, petitioner was not deprived of a fair trial and the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jurors that each mitigating factor need not be found unanimously. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lucas v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for supplemental security income (SSI). The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision denying plaintiff's application for SSI where the ALJ's decision in this case was not a broad rejection and was sufficient to enable the district court and this court to conclude that the ALJ considered plaintiff's medical condition as whole. The court held that the Appeals Council is not required to explain its rationale when denying a request for review and concluded that the new evidence plaintiff submitted did not render the Commissioner's denial of benefits erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mitchell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the School District, her former employer, for violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The court held that the School District is not an "arm of the State," and instead operates more like a county or similar political subdivision to which Eleventh Amendment immunity does not extend. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's finding that the School District was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. In regards to plaintiff's ADA retaliation claim, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the School District where the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to construe plaintiff's ADA retaliation claim as being based on different facts than the ones actually pled in her ADA count. Even when construed liberally, plaintiff's complaint did not give the School District notice that her ADA retaliation claim was based on her request for FMLA leave. View "Lightfoot v. Henry Cnty. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law