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

On Thanksgiving night in 2018, Officer David Alexander, a policeman with the City of Hoover, was on foot patrol at the Galleria Mall in Birmingham, Alabama. During a suspected active shooting situation, Officer Alexander saw Emantic "E.J." Fitzgerald Bradford moving towards two men with a gun in his hand. Without issuing a verbal warning, Officer Alexander shot and killed Mr. Bradford, who was legally authorized to carry his gun and was attempting to provide assistance.April Pipkins, Mr. Bradford's mother and representative of his estate, filed a lawsuit against Officer Alexander, the City of Hoover, and other defendants, asserting Fourth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims for negligence and wantonness. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissed the state law claims and granted summary judgment on the § 1983 claims, ruling that Officer Alexander's use of deadly force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that a verbal warning was not feasible under the circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that Officer Alexander acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment given the circumstances, which included a crowded mall, the sound of gunshots, and Mr. Bradford running with a gun towards two men. The court also found that a verbal warning was not feasible due to the immediate threat perceived by Officer Alexander. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the state law claims, concluding that the Mall defendants did not owe a duty to protect Mr. Bradford from the criminal acts of a third party and that the complaint did not plausibly allege foreseeability or incompetency in hiring, training, and supervising Officer Alexander. View "Pipkins v. City of Hoover, Alabama" on Justia Law

Jaime Vargas and Francis R. Alvarez, former employees of medical supplier Lincare, Inc., and its subsidiary Optigen, Inc., filed a qui tam complaint under the False Claims Act (FCA). They alleged that Optigen engaged in fraudulent practices, including systematic upcoding of durable medical equipment, improper kickback arrangements, waiver of co-pays, and shipment of unordered supplies. The relators claimed that Optigen billed CPAP batteries and accessories under codes designated for ventilator accessories, waived patient co-pays without assessing financial hardship, shipped CPAP supplies automatically without patient requests, and paid kickbacks to healthcare providers for referrals.The case was initially filed in the Eastern District of Virginia and later transferred to the Middle District of Florida. The United States declined to intervene, and the District Court unsealed the complaint. The relators filed multiple amended complaints, each of which was dismissed by the District Court for failing to meet the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The District Court dismissed the fourth amended complaint, holding that it still failed to plead sufficient facts with the requisite specificity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the relators' claims regarding improper kickback arrangements, waiver of co-pays, and automatic shipment of supplies, finding that these allegations lacked the necessary specificity and failed to identify any actual false claims submitted to the government. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the upcoding claim, holding that the relators had pleaded sufficient facts with particularity to withstand a motion to dismiss. The court remanded the case for further proceedings limited to the upcoding issue. View "Vargas v. Lincare, Inc." on Justia Law

A class of incarcerated juvenile offenders in Florida, all sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole under a now-defunct sentencing scheme, sued the Commissioners of the Florida Commission on Offender Review. They claimed that the parole system violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process rights. The plaintiffs argued that the parole system did not provide a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment to the Commissioners, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims. The court found that Florida's parole system did not violate the Eighth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Florida's parole system does not violate the Eighth Amendment for either homicide or non-homicide juvenile offenders. For homicide offenders, the system is not a sham and provides a genuine possibility of parole, satisfying the requirements set forth in Miller v. Alabama. For non-homicide offenders, the system offers a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, as required by Graham v. Florida.Regarding the due process claim, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole under either state law or the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, their procedural due process claim failed. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Commissioners. View "Howard v. Coonrod" on Justia Law

In 1996, Congress enacted the Helms-Burton Act to allow U.S. nationals to seek compensation for property confiscated by the Castro regime in Cuba. Odette Blanco de Fernandez and her siblings' heirs and estates alleged that Seaboard Marine trafficked in property confiscated from their family’s companies, Azucarera Mariel, S.A. and Maritima Mariel, S.A., by shipping goods to a container terminal on the west side of Mariel Bay. The district court granted summary judgment for Seaboard, concluding that Fernandez failed to present evidence that Seaboard trafficked in confiscated land.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the claims of Fernandez’s siblings' heirs and estates, ruling they could not bring a claim under the Act because the siblings died after the statutory bar date of March 12, 1996. However, the court allowed Fernandez’s claims to proceed. The district court later granted summary judgment for Seaboard, holding that Fernandez did not provide sufficient evidence that Seaboard trafficked in confiscated property.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the siblings' heirs and estates' claims, citing the statutory bar date. The court also affirmed the summary judgment regarding Maritima’s 1955 concession, agreeing that it did not grant exclusive rights to exploit the entirety of Mariel Bay. However, the court reversed the summary judgment concerning Azucarera’s confiscated land, finding that Fernandez presented sufficient evidence that Seaboard’s commercial activities benefited from the confiscated property. The court held that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Seaboard benefited from the confiscated land by using the terminal built on it. The case was affirmed in part and reversed in part, allowing Fernandez’s claim regarding Azucarera’s land to proceed. View "De Fernandez v. Seaboard Marine Ltd." on Justia Law

Christin Bilotti was convicted of second-degree murder in Florida state court. After exhausting her appeals, she sought postconviction relief in Florida, which was denied. Bilotti then filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court also rejected. The Eleventh Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on two claims from Bilotti’s federal habeas petition: ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to preserve a religion-based challenge to a juror strike and for failing to object to jury instructions.The Florida intermediate appellate court initially reversed Bilotti’s conviction, citing a similar case involving her co-defendant, John Pacchiana, where the court found the state’s peremptory strike of a juror pretextual and improper. However, the Florida Supreme Court quashed this decision, ruling that the religion-based objection was not properly preserved at trial. On remand, the intermediate appellate court affirmed Bilotti’s conviction.In state postconviction proceedings, Bilotti argued that her trial counsel was ineffective for not preserving the religion-based Batson challenge and for not objecting to the jury instructions. The state postconviction court denied her claims, adopting the state’s arguments, and the appellate court affirmed without explanation.The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that even if Bilotti could show prejudice from her counsel’s failure to preserve the religion-based objection, she could not establish deficient performance. At the time of her trial, the law was unsettled on whether Batson extended to religion-based exclusions. The court also found that the jury instructions were substantively identical to Florida’s standard instructions, which had not been invalidated by the Florida Supreme Court. Therefore, counsel’s failure to object to these instructions was not deficient performance, nor was it prejudicial.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, denying Bilotti’s habeas petition. View "Bilotti v. Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Several college volleyball players accused their coach of physical, verbal, psychological, and sexual abuse. The players alleged that the coach engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment and abuse, including inappropriate touching and forcing players to engage in uncomfortable physical interactions. They also claimed that the coach's misconduct was reported to various university administrators and assistant coaches, who either witnessed or were informed of the abuse.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama dismissed the players' Title IX and § 1983 claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court found that the players had abandoned their breach-of-contract claims and dismissed those with prejudice. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the players failed to state a Title IX claim because only certain university administrators were "appropriate persons" to receive notice of the misconduct, and the players did not provide sufficient actual notice of sexual harassment to those individuals. The court also found that the university did not act with deliberate indifference upon receiving the notice.Regarding the § 1983 claims, the court held that the players did not show that the university employees' conduct violated clearly established substantive-due-process principles. The court concluded that the employees were entitled to qualified immunity because the players did not provide case law with indistinguishable facts, a broad statement of principle, or conduct so egregious that it clearly violated constitutional rights.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing the players' Title IX and § 1983 claims. View "DeMarcus v. University of South Alabama" on Justia Law

Jordan Pulido developed an online relationship with a 14-year-old Croatian girl, I.G., and, with the help of his father, Roberto Jimenez, traveled to Croatia to have sex with her. They later brought her to the United States, where Pulido continued to have sex with her. Pulido was indicted on multiple counts, including using the internet to entice a minor, traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, and transporting a minor for sexual activity. Jimenez was indicted for conspiring to transport a minor for sexual activity.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Pulido's pre-trial motions to dismiss the indictment, suppress evidence, and exclude testimony. Both defendants were convicted on all counts after a nine-day trial. Post-trial motions for acquittal, a new trial, and a mistrial were also denied. Jimenez received sentence enhancements for exercising undue influence and having custody or supervisory control over I.G.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions on most counts but vacated Pulido's conviction on the enticement count, finding the indictment duplicitous. The court held that the enticement count was not harmless and remanded for resentencing. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Pulido's motion to suppress evidence from his electronic devices, holding that the border search exception applied. Additionally, the court found no fundamental unfairness in the translation irregularities during I.G.'s mother's testimony.For Jimenez, the court affirmed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, finding sufficient evidence of his intent to transport I.G. for sexual activity. The court also upheld the denial of his motion for a mistrial based on Agent Garcia's testimony about his immigration status, concluding that the curative instruction mitigated any potential prejudice. Finally, the court affirmed the application of the sentencing enhancements for undue influence and custody or supervisory control. View "U.S. v. Pulido" on Justia Law

Sara Watts, an African American woman, sued her former homeowners’ association, Joggers Run Property Owners Association (HOA), alleging racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Civil Rights Act. Watts claimed the HOA interfered with her property enjoyment through unwarranted citations, restricted access to amenities, and discriminatory treatment as a former HOA board member. She cited provisions from the FHA (42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b), 3617) and the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Watts' claims, ruling that the FHA did not cover discriminatory conduct occurring after the purchase of her home and that Watts failed to specify the contractual terms the HOA allegedly violated. The court found her allegations insufficient to support claims under the FHA and the Civil Rights Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Watts presented plausible claims under the FHA and the Civil Rights Act. It found that the FHA's language is broad and inclusive, prohibiting a wide range of discriminatory conduct related to housing. The court concluded that the HOA's actions, including restricted access to amenities and selective enforcement of rules, fell within the scope of the FHA. The court also determined that Watts sufficiently alleged intentional racial discrimination causing contractual injury under Section 1981 and that the HOA's actions violated her right to use property on an equal basis with White citizens under Section 1982.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Watts v. Joggers Run Property Owners Association, Inc." on Justia Law

Pemco and Boeing entered into a contractual "teaming arrangement" to bid for a 2008 Air Force contract, which included a master agreement, a work share agreement, and a non-disclosure agreement. The relationship soured, leading Pemco to sue Boeing for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation under the Missouri Trade Secrets Act. The district court initially dismissed the trade secrets claim as time-barred but allowed the breach of contract claims to proceed, resulting in a jury awarding Pemco $2,132,038 in direct damages.On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the trade secrets claim, holding that the Missouri statute of limitations applied, not Alabama's. After remand, Pemco filed a new complaint asserting only the trade secrets claim. The district court dismissed this claim, concluding that the contractual limitation of liability provision barred all additional damages since Pemco had already recovered the maximum amount allowed for breach of contract.The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and held that the limitation of liability provision in the master agreement applies to Pemco’s trade secrets claim, barring most categories of damages, including incidental, punitive, and consequential damages. However, the court found that the provision does not bar recovery for unjust enrichment, which Pemco had alleged. The court noted that unjust enrichment damages are distinct from the direct, out-of-pocket damages Pemco had already recovered and are not categorically barred by the limitation provision.The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Pemco’s trade secrets claim and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Pemco to pursue recovery based on Boeing’s alleged unjust enrichment. The court denied Pemco’s request to reassign the case to a different district judge. View "Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc. v. Boeing Company, The" on Justia Law

The case involves an FBI investigation into Jeffrey Alan Siegmeister, the State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida, and Marion Michael O'Steen, a defense attorney. The investigation began after Andy Tong, who was being prosecuted by Siegmeister, informed the FBI that O'Steen would have to pay Siegmeister $50,000 for a favorable case disposition. The investigation concluded with a grand jury indictment against Siegmeister and O'Steen, charging them with multiple counts, including conspiracy to engage in bribery and extortion.In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Siegmeister entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to several counts, including conspiracy and bribery. O'Steen stood trial on four counts. The jury found O'Steen not guilty on Counts One and Two but guilty on Counts Three and Four. The District Court sentenced O'Steen to concurrent prison terms of 44 months, followed by supervised release, and ordered him to pay fines and restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the jury instructions on Count Three were flawed, as they allowed for a conviction based on an incorrect legal theory. The court also determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove that O'Steen knew of the fifteen-day reporting requirement for filing Form 8300, as required by Count Four. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment and instructed the lower court to enter a judgment of acquittal for O'Steen. View "USA v. O'Steen" on Justia Law