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

Two state prisoners, Theresa Batson and Michael Cassidy, filed federal petitions for writs of habeas corpus, arguing their petitions were timely due to amended state court judgments. Batson was convicted of conspiracy and solicitation to commit murder, receiving a 60-year sentence. After a successful post-conviction relief motion, her judgment was amended to vacate one count, but her sentences were marked nunc pro tunc to the original date. Cassidy was convicted of sexual battery and sentenced to 35 years. His judgment was amended to correct a clerical error and later to vacate one count due to ineffective counsel, but the amended judgment did not include a nunc pro tunc designation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed Batson’s petition as untimely, ruling that her amended sentences, designated nunc pro tunc, did not restart the statute of limitations. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Cassidy’s petition as untimely, concluding that his amended judgment was effectively nunc pro tunc, despite the absence of such a designation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed these consolidated appeals. The court affirmed the dismissal of Batson’s petition, holding that the nunc pro tunc designation on her amended sentences meant they related back to the original judgment, thus not restarting the statute of limitations. However, the court vacated the dismissal of Cassidy’s petition, determining that his amended judgment, which was not designated nunc pro tunc, constituted a new judgment that restarted the statute of limitations.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Batson’s petition and vacated and remanded the dismissal of Cassidy’s petition for further proceedings. View "Cassidy v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between two insurance companies, Gemini and Zurich, over their respective contributions to a $2 million settlement arising from a fatal accident involving a tractor-trailer. FSR Trucking, the employer of the driver involved in the accident, was insured by Zurich for $1 million and by Gemini for $3 million. The settlement was paid with $2 million from Gemini and $1 million from Ryder’s insurer. The disagreement centers on how much each insurer should contribute to the $2 million paid by Gemini.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of Zurich, ruling that both insurance policies were "mutually repugnant" and thus required pro rata contribution. Zurich had already tendered $500,000, which the court deemed its pro rata share. The court also awarded Gemini prejudgment interest on the $500,000 from the date of the settlement payment to the date Zurich tendered its share. Gemini appealed, seeking an additional $500,000, while Zurich cross-appealed the award of prejudgment interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court's decision regarding the amount of contribution. The appellate court held that Gemini's policy was excess to Zurich's, based on the specific language in the "other insurance" clauses of both policies. Consequently, Zurich was required to pay an additional $500,000 to Gemini. The court affirmed the district court's award of prejudgment interest on the initial $500,000 and directed the lower court to award prejudgment interest on the additional $500,000 from the date of the settlement payment to the date of the amended final judgment. The case was remanded for entry of judgment consistent with these findings. View "Gemini Insurance Co. v. Zurich American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case involves Havana Docks Corporation, which held a 99-year usufructuary concession at the Port of Havana, Cuba. This concession, granted in 1905, allowed Havana Docks to build and operate piers at the port. The Cuban Government expropriated this concession in 1960, and Havana Docks has not received compensation for this expropriation. The concession was set to expire in 2004. Havana Docks filed a claim with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, which certified its loss at $9.179 million.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled in favor of Havana Docks, awarding over $100 million in judgments against four cruise lines—Royal Caribbean Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Carnival Corporation, and MSC Cruises—for trafficking in the confiscated property from 2016 to 2019. The court found that the cruise lines had engaged in trafficking by docking their ships at the terminal, using the property to embark and disembark passengers, and using it as a starting and ending point for shore excursions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Havana Docks' limited property interest had expired in 2004, and therefore, the cruise lines did not traffic in the confiscated property from 2016 to 2019. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that Havana Docks is a U.S. national under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act but reversed the judgments against the cruise lines for the 2016-2019 period. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding Havana Docks' claims against Carnival for alleged trafficking from 1996 to 2001. View "Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd." on Justia Law

Louis Mercado was charged with three counts of capital sexual battery in Florida. During his trial, the court granted judgments of acquittal on two counts and declared a mistrial on the third count due to prosecutorial error. The trial court then barred a retrial, citing the Double Jeopardy Clause. The State appealed this decision, but Mercado's attorney, mistakenly believing he had withdrawn from the case, failed to file a response brief. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, leading to Mercado's retrial, conviction, and life sentence.The Fifth District Court of Appeal summarily denied Mercado's state habeas petition, in which he argued ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to file a response brief. Mercado contended that this failure should be presumed prejudicial under United States v. Cronic, rather than requiring proof of prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. The appellate court's decision was based on the reasoning that the failure to file a brief did not constitute a complete denial of counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of Mercado's federal habeas petition. The court held that the state court's decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The Eleventh Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has never applied the Cronic presumption of prejudice to a situation where counsel failed to file an appellee's brief. Therefore, the state court's requirement for Mercado to prove actual prejudice under Strickland was deemed reasonable. View "Mercado v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, Lester Jenkins and Dwight Siples Jr., participated in the cleanup of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and later developed chronic sinusitis, which they attributed to exposure to crude oil and dispersants during the cleanup. They filed suits against BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America Production Company, claiming that their medical conditions were caused by this exposure. The plaintiffs relied on expert testimony to establish general causation, which is necessary in toxic-tort cases where the medical community does not recognize the alleged toxins as harmful.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida reviewed the expert testimonies of Dr. Michael Freeman and Dr. Gina Solomon, who opined that a causal relationship existed between the cleanup work and chronic sinusitis. However, the district court excluded their testimonies, finding that neither expert identified a minimal level of exposure at which crude oil, its dispersants, or associated chemicals are hazardous to humans. The court also noted that the experts failed to identify a statistically significant association between the chronic conditions and exposure to crude oil, assess the limitations of various studies, or meaningfully consider causal factors. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of BP.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimonies. It emphasized that in toxic-tort cases, plaintiffs must demonstrate the levels of exposure that are hazardous to humans generally. The court found that the experts failed to establish a harmful level of exposure for crude oil or its dispersants and did not adequately support their causation opinions with reliable scientific evidence. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of BP was affirmed. View "In Re Deepwater Horizon Belo Cases" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan company, HSR, engaged another Guatemalan company, AICSA, to design and construct a hydroelectric power plant. The project faced opposition from the local indigenous community, leading to work suspension and eventual contract termination by HSR. HSR initiated arbitration seeking payments and damages from AICSA, which counterclaimed for its own damages and sought to include its subcontractor, Novacom, in the arbitration.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially denied AICSA's motion to vacate the arbitration award, citing Eleventh Circuit precedent. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in an en banc decision, later reversed this, holding that Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides grounds for vacatur in cases governed by the New York Convention. The case was remanded to the District Court, which ultimately confirmed the arbitration award, leading to AICSA's appeal.The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the arbitration tribunal did not exceed its authority in three key areas: requiring AICSA to maintain or renew advance payment bonds, denying AICSA's claim that HSR breached anti-corruption provisions, and refusing to join Novacom to the arbitration. The court emphasized that the tribunal's decisions were based on interpretations of the contract, even if those interpretations were arguably erroneous. The court's review was limited to whether the tribunal interpreted the contract, not whether it did so correctly. View "Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A. v. Corporacion AIC, SA" on Justia Law

Fane Lozman owns a parcel of submerged and upland land in the City of Riviera Beach, Florida. After the city enacted a comprehensive plan and ordinance restricting development, Lozman sued, claiming the city deprived his property of all beneficial economic use without just compensation. Lozman has not applied for any permits, variances, or rezoning to understand the extent of permitted development on his land. He also faced federal and state enforcement actions for unauthorized modifications to his property.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment for Riviera Beach. The court found that Lozman did not have any right to fill his submerged land under federal and state law, was not denied all economically productive or beneficial uses of his land, and did not plead a ripe Penn Central regulatory taking claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Lozman's claim was not ripe for judicial review because he had not received a final decision from Riviera Beach regarding the application of the comprehensive plan and ordinance to his property. Lozman had not applied for any permits, variances, or rezoning, which are necessary to determine the nature and extent of permitted development. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss Lozman’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach" on Justia Law

The case involves two grand jury subpoenas issued to an accounting firm and an investment company in connection with an alleged illegal tax-shelter scheme. The investment company claimed that the documents sought were protected by attorney-client privilege. The government moved to compel the production of these documents, arguing that the crime-fraud exception applied, which would negate the privilege claims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the investment company’s motion to intervene and ordered the accounting firm to comply with the subpoena. The court also ruled that the crime-fraud exception applied, compelling the investment company, the accounting firm, and other third parties to produce the requested documents. The investment company appealed these orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeals. The court noted that typically, orders related to grand jury subpoenas are not appealable unless the party stands in contempt. The investment company had not stood in contempt before appealing, which generally precludes appellate review. The court also considered the Perlman exception, which allows immediate appeal if the subpoenaed party is unlikely to risk contempt to protect another’s privilege. However, the court found that this exception did not apply because the investment company could have raised its privilege arguments on appeal by standing in contempt.The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that the investment company’s failure to stand in contempt foreclosed its ability to seek immediate appellate review. The court held that the investment company must comply with the district court’s orders or stand in contempt to preserve its right to appeal. View "In Re: Grand Jury Investigation" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, citizens of the Dominican Republic, requested records from three federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to the revocation of their U.S. visas. The agencies produced some records but withheld others, citing FOIA exemptions, including Exemption 3 and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 222(f). The plaintiffs challenged the adequacy of the searches and the exemptions claimed by the agencies.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reviewed the case. The government filed declarations from FOIA officials explaining the searches and the withheld records. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, concluding that the agencies conducted adequate searches and properly invoked FOIA Exemption 3 to withhold and redact documents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the agencies conducted reasonable searches and properly invoked Exemption 3. The court found that INA § 222(f) qualifies as a withholding statute under Exemption 3 and that visa revocation records fall within its scope. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the agencies' declarations violated the best evidence rule and that the searches were inadequate because they did not include alien number searches or routing requests to other DHS components. The court concluded that the agencies' actions were reasonable and in compliance with FOIA requirements. View "Jimenez v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two federally recognized Indian tribes, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, over the excavation and development of a burial site known as Hickory Ground in Wetumpka, Alabama. The Muscogee Nation claims that the site is sacred and historically significant, containing graves and ceremonial grounds. The Poarch Band, which purchased the site in 1980 and later had it held in trust by the United States, excavated the site with Auburn University and announced plans to develop a hotel and casino on it. The Muscogee Nation sued to stop the development and restore the site.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama dismissed the Muscogee Nation's complaint, ruling that the Poarch Band and its officials enjoyed sovereign immunity. The court also found that the Poarch officials were immune under an exception to Ex parte Young for claims that are the functional equivalent of a quiet title action and implicate special sovereignty interests. The district court did not analyze the claims individually but dismissed them collectively, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred by not analyzing the Poarch officials' sovereign immunity on a claim-by-claim basis. The appellate court emphasized that each claim must be considered separately to determine whether it is the functional equivalent of a quiet title action and whether it implicates special sovereignty interests. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to allow the Muscogee Nation to amend its complaint and to analyze the claims individually. The appellate court also rejected the argument that the Supreme Court had abrogated the Coeur d’Alene exception to Ex parte Young, affirming that it remains a narrow but valid exception. View "Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Rollin" on Justia Law