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

Eric and Todd Romano, trustees of the Romano Law, PL 401(k) Plan, filed a class action against John Hancock Life Insurance Company. They claimed that John Hancock breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by not passing through the value of foreign tax credits received from mutual funds to the defined-contribution plans. The Romanos argued that John Hancock should have used these credits to reduce the administrative fees charged to the plans.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of John Hancock, concluding that John Hancock was not an ERISA fiduciary regarding the foreign tax credits and did not breach any fiduciary duties. The court also ruled that the Romanos and the class lacked Article III standing because they failed to establish loss causation.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 John Hancock was not an ERISA fiduciary concerning the foreign tax credits because these credits were not plan assets. The court explained that the foreign tax credits were a result of John Hancock's ownership of mutual fund shares and were not held in trust for the benefit of the plans. Additionally, the court found that John Hancock did not have discretionary authority over the management or administration of the separate accounts that would make it a fiduciary under ERISA. Consequently, the Romanos' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and engaging in prohibited transactions failed as a matter of law. View "Romano v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company (USA)" on Justia Law

In 2010, four individuals sued the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) under the Anti-Terrorism Act, resulting in a default judgment of $318 million against FARC. Unable to collect from FARC, the plaintiffs sought to garnish assets of Samark José López Bello and his companies, alleging they were agents or instrumentalities of FARC. The district court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed, mandating a jury trial to determine the agency status of López and his companies.On remand, the district court scheduled a jury trial and allowed discovery. The plaintiffs sought to depose López and requested documents. López and his companies filed motions for protective orders to avoid discovery, which the district court denied, warning of sanctions for non-compliance. López failed to appear for his deposition and did not comply with document requests. Consequently, the district court entered default judgments against López and his companies, citing willful disobedience and the inability to compel compliance due to López's fugitive status.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's entry of default judgments, finding no abuse of discretion. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly interpreted its scheduling order to allow discovery and found that López's failure to comply with discovery orders was willful. The court also determined that less severe sanctions would not ensure compliance, given López's fugitive status. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction due to an appeal of the protective order denials, as those orders were not final or immediately appealable. View "Stansell v. Lopez Bello" on Justia Law

In this case, Jimmy Davis, Jr., an Alabama prisoner sentenced to death for the 1993 murder of Johnny Hazle during a gas station robbery, appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. Davis argued that his trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of his trial for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence of childhood abuse and the circumstances of his prior conviction for third-degree robbery.The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Davis’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Davis then filed a state postconviction petition, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. The state court found that Davis’s trial counsel did not perform deficiently and that Davis was not prejudiced by the alleged deficiencies. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of the postconviction petition, concluding that the investigation conducted by Davis’s attorneys was reasonable and that Davis failed to show prejudice.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied Davis’s § 2254 petition, concluding that the state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of the habeas petition.The Eleventh Circuit held that the state court’s conclusion that Davis was not prejudiced by his counsel’s alleged deficiencies was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The court noted that the additional mitigating evidence presented during the postconviction proceedings, including evidence of childhood abuse and the non-violent nature of the prior robbery, did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome. The court emphasized that the state court’s decision was not so obviously wrong that it lay beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement. View "Davis v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Hector Diaz-Arellano, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. illegally in 1989. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security charged him as a removable alien. Diaz-Arellano conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal, claiming it would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to his U.S.-citizen daughter, who was under 21 at the time. However, by the time of his final removal hearing, his daughter had turned 21, making her ineligible as a qualifying relative under the statute.The Immigration Judge (IJ) initially warned Diaz-Arellano that his daughter's upcoming 21st birthday could affect his eligibility for cancellation of removal. Despite this, Diaz-Arellano delayed filing his application and did not object to a hearing date set after his daughter's birthday. At the final hearing, the IJ denied his application, noting that his daughter no longer qualified as a "child" under the statute. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision, citing Matter of Isidro-Zamorano, which holds that a child must be under 21 at the time of the final adjudication.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court held that the statute unambiguously requires a qualifying relative to be under 21 at the time of the final decision on cancellation of removal. The court rejected Diaz-Arellano's argument that the BIA's interpretation was incorrect and found no undue or unfair delay in his proceedings that would warrant an exception. Consequently, the court denied Diaz-Arellano's petition for review, affirming that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his daughter was no longer a qualifying child. View "Diaz-Arellano v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

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