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

Plaintiff and other checking account customers filed suit against the Bank for allegedly charging excessive overdraft fees in breach of their account agreement. The district court denied the Bank's renewed motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that state law applied when courts determined whether a valid arbitration agreement is in effect, and the Federal Arbitration Act's, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., presumption did not; under North Carolina law, the Bank Agreement was entirely superseded, and the arbitration agreement in that agreement therefore became ineffective; the district court properly looked to the PNC Agreement to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes; under North Carolina law, the PNC Agreement's silence was insufficient to form such an agreement; based on the terms of the agreement, the PNC Agreement applied retroactively; and because the agreement governing the dispute at hand did not permit the Bank to compel arbitration, the district court properly denied the motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Dasher v. RBC Bank (USA)" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit, inter alia, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting an Eighth Amendment claim against the Department and officials, alleging that they had acted with deliberate indifference by failing to provide him care for his retinopathy. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding that plaintiff had voluntarily, and with informed consent, signed a form refusing a consultation with a retinal specialist. The court concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning the validity and scope of the refusal form. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim, concluding that the district court will need to evaluate the claim on remand as to each individual defendant, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. The district court may also need to revisit its dismissal of the state law negligence claim. View "Kuhne v. FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her mortgage lender, Wells Fargo, alleging that Wells Fargo breached the mortgage-loan contract and violated extracontractual duties by requiring her to have more flood insurance than the amount set by federal law. At issue was whether a covenant included in all contracts for home mortgage loans guaranteed by the FHA unambiguously permitted mortgage lenders to require their borrowers to obtain flood insurance beyond the amount the agency required. The court concluded that the covenant unambiguously made the federally required flood-insurance amount the minimum, not the maximum, the borrower must have. Accordingly, plaintiff could not prevail on her claims against Wells Fargo and the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim. View "Feaz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for conspiracy to distribute. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conspiracy convictions; the court rejected Defendant Halcomb-Reeves' evidentiary challenges; and there was no discernible error in the prosecutor's closing argument and, if there was error, it was harmless because the record contained sufficient independent evidence of Defendant Moss's guilt. Finally, the district court did not err by attributing at least 150 kilograms of cocaine to Defendant Reeves at sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court remanded for the limited purpose of correcting the scrivener's errors in Defendant Reeve's written judgment. View "United States v. Reeves, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Guatemalan labor organizers, filed suit alleging that Del Monte and its subsidiaries were responsible for armed kidnapping, intimidation, and torture on a Guatemalan banana plantation in 1999. The court had dismissed plaintiffs' claims for forum non conveniens; plaintiffs then filed a complaint in Guatemala but the local court refused to hear the case; without appealing, plaintiffs sought to reinstate their action in federal court; and the district court refused to reopen the case in the absence of exceptional circumstances under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing reinstatement when plaintiffs created the procedural plight they now challenged. View "Aldana, et al. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that her teenage daughter - who suffers from severe emotional, mental, and physical disabilities - was sexually assaulted by another student while in defendant's care. The district court concluded that plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief and dismissed with prejudice. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of her motions for partial reconsideration and for leave to amend. Because plaintiff failed to demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" warranting the reopening of the final judgment, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for partial reconsideration. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "M. G. v. St. Lucie Cty. Sch. Bd., et al." on Justia Law

Offshore appealed the district court's order permitting a lone claimant to pursue personal injury claims in state court after Offshore had invoked the Limitation of Liability Act (Limitation Act), 46 U.S.C. 30501. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in determining that the claimant could proceed first in state court with her tort claim before the district court adjudicated the boat owner's efforts to limit its liability to the value of the vessel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Offshore of Palm Beaches, Inc. v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas petition and the court granted him a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the district court improperly determined that his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition was time-barred based on its finding that he was not entitled to equitable tolling. In light of Maples v. Thomas, the court held that attorney negligence, however gross or egregious, did not qualify as "extraordinary circumstances" for purposes of equitable tolling; abandonment of the attorney-client relationship, such as may have occurred in Holland v. Florida was required. Because petitioner was not abandoned by his post-conviction attorney, he failed to establish the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the section 2244(d) limitations period. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Cadet v. Secretary, FL Dep't of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of sixteen counts of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951, conspiracy, and use and carrying of firearms during the commission of a violent crime. The court held that the good faith reliance exception to the exclusionary rule under Davis v. United States applied to this case because the officers' conduct comported with clear, binding precedent that pre-dated the United States v. Jones opinion; the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to suppress; the district court did not abuse its discretion in any of its evidentiary rulings; a reasonable trier of fact could have found Defendant Lowe of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and the charges related to the other armed robberies at issue; and, because there was no evidence that Lowe took any action in furtherance of the Kendall CVS robbery, the court vacated his conviction on those counts and remanded for sentencing. View "United States v. Ransfer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of three counts of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and (b), and four other counts relating to his possession and use of firearms during those robberies. The court concluded that the district court did not commit error, much less plain error, in imposing a mandatory life sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3559(c) without any jury findings about the existence of defendant's prior convictions. Relying on the court's precedent in United States v. Holmes and United States v. Cespedes, the court rejected defendant's contention that the combination of section 3559(c) and 21 U.S.C. 851, which resulted in his mandatory life sentence, violated "the Nondelegation Doctrine, Separation of Powers principles, and the U.S. Constitution" by impermissibly giving the executive branch "the power to prosecute and the power to sentence." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law