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

Jonathan Guerra Blanco was charged with attempting to provide material support to ISIS, a designated foreign terrorist organization. He pled guilty and agreed to the government’s factual proffer. Guerra ran two unofficial ISIS media networks primarily directed at Spanish speakers, producing and disseminating ISIS propaganda, recruiting materials, and instructional guides for committing acts of terror. He was arrested in Miami in September 2020.Guerra appealed his 192-month sentence, contending that the government improperly used evidence obtained from testimony he had provided pursuant to a proffer agreement and that the district court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing on the matter. He also challenged the application of a 12-point sentencing enhancement for promoting a federal crime of terrorism and asserted that the district court erred by not applying a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility from his maximum statutory sentence of 240 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the government's use of the video threatening the assassination of a Spanish judge, with English subtitles inserted by Guerra, did not constitute a breach of the proffer agreement. The court also upheld the application of the terrorism enhancement, finding that Guerra's conduct was "calculated to influence the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion." Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion with respect to the district court's application of the 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. View "USA v. Blanco" on Justia Law

In 2021, Carmelo Etienne threatened violence against a federal magistrate judge, a courtroom deputy, and other courthouse employees via a phone call to a federal courthouse. He later pleaded nolo contendere to threatening to assault and murder a federal magistrate judge and a courtroom deputy. The district court imposed a time-served sentence and three years of supervised release. As special conditions of that release, the district court ordered Etienne to make financial disclosures to the probation office and prohibited him from visiting certain federal courthouses and from calling the judges’ chambers or court facilities. Etienne challenged both conditions on appeal.Previously, the district court had overruled Etienne's objection to the stay-away order, which he argued unduly burdened his right to access the federal courts. He did not object to the financial disclosure condition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that it was not plain error to impose the financial disclosure condition. The court also found that the stay-away order was not vague or overbroad and did not unduly burden Etienne’s right to access the federal courts. The court noted that the stay-away order was narrowly tailored to address Etienne’s serious criminal conduct and did not create an absolute bar on Etienne’s rights. View "USA v. Etienne" on Justia Law

The case involves Marken Leger, a Haitian citizen who has lived in the United States as an asylee since 2000. In 2009, Leger pleaded no contest to a charge of lewd and lascivious battery, in violation of Florida Statute § 800.04(4). In 2013 and 2018, Leger pleaded no contest to two other offenses, both for the possession of marijuana, in violation of Florida Statute § 893.13(6)(b). The government initiated removal proceedings against him in 2019, alleging that his convictions made him removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).The immigration judge concluded that Leger was removable, finding that his marijuana possession convictions constituted controlled substance offenses under the INA and that his conviction under Florida Statute § 800.04(4) was an aggravated felony. Leger appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the immigration judge’s decision.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the court held that Leger's marijuana possession convictions did not constitute controlled substance offenses as defined under federal law, and thus, the BIA erred in determining that Leger was subject to removal on these grounds. The court also held that Leger's conviction under Florida Statute § 800.04(4) did not constitute the sexual abuse of a minor and was not an aggravated felony under the INA. The court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Marken Leger v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

This case involves a mistaken identification by two sheriff's office investigators, Joseph Bultman and Jon Hixon, who identified George Angel Harris as the individual captured on security camera footage using a stolen debit card. Based on this identification, Hixon obtained two arrest warrants for Harris for financial transaction card fraud. Harris was arrested and held in jail for a few hours before being released. The criminal case against him was eventually dismissed.Previously, Harris filed a lawsuit against the investigators under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they violated his Fourth Amendment rights by causing him to be falsely arrested and unlawfully detained without probable cause. The district court construed Harris' claims as ones for malicious prosecution and granted summary judgment in favor of the investigators on qualified immunity grounds.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Harris argued that the investigation leading to his arrest was inadequate, that the district court erred in excluding his expert's testimony about the unreasonableness of the investigation, and that Hixon's arrest affidavit was based on conclusory statements without supporting facts, making the warrants for his arrest constitutionally inadequate.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. It held that the investigators' mistaken identification of Harris was a reasonable mistake and did not violate Harris' Fourth Amendment rights. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Harris' expert's testimony, as it would not have been helpful to a jury. Finally, the court held that even if the arrest warrant application was insufficient, the investigators had probable cause to arrest Harris based on their own knowledge and the brief period of Harris' detention. View "Harris v. Hixon" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an employment discrimination suit filed by Dr. Tara Loux against her former employers, BayCare Medical Group and St. Joseph’s Hospital. Dr. Loux sought to discover BayCare’s internal documents about the performance of other doctors who were not fired despite also committing errors. BayCare objected to disclosing certain documents, such as its “quality files” and “referral logs,” arguing that they were privileged under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005. The Act creates a statutory privilege for work product prepared for or reported to patient safety organizations.The district court ordered BayCare to produce the disputed documents, concluding that the Act does not privilege documents if they have a “dual purpose,” only one of which relates to making reports to a patient safety organization. The court held that these documents were not privileged because BayCare used information in the documents for other purposes, such as internal safety analysis and peer review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court's interpretation of the Act. The appellate court found that the district court had applied an incorrect "sole purpose" standard to assess whether BayCare’s quality files and referral logs fell under the privilege. The court held that the Act does not require that privileged information be kept solely for provision to a Patient Safety Organization. The court granted BayCare's petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to vacate its orders compelling the disclosure of the privileged documents and reconsider BayCare’s assertion of privilege consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "In re: Baycare Medical Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Anna Lange, a transgender woman employed by the Houston County Sheriff's Office in Georgia. Lange was diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2017 and her healthcare providers recommended a treatment plan that included hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery. In 2018, her healthcare providers determined that a vaginoplasty was medically necessary. However, Lange's request for coverage was denied based on the health insurance plan's exclusion of services and supplies for sex change and/or the reversal of a sex change. Lange filed claims against Houston County with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and subsequently sued Houston County and the Sheriff of Houston County in the Middle District of Georgia.The district court granted summary judgment to Lange on the Title VII claim, finding the Exclusion facially discriminatory as a matter of law. The Title VII claim then proceeded to trial, and a jury awarded Lange $60,000 in damages. After trial, the district court entered an order declaring that the Exclusion violated Title VII and permanently enjoined the Sheriff and Houston County from any further enforcement or application of the Exclusion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that a health insurance provider can be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for denying coverage for gender-affirming care to a transgender employee because the employee is transgender. The court also held that Houston County is liable under Title VII as an agent of the Sheriff's Office. The court affirmed the district court's order permanently enjoining Houston County and the Sheriff from further enforcement or application of the Exclusion. View "Lange v. Houston County, Georgia" on Justia Law

The case revolves around W.P. Productions, Inc. (WPP), a company owned by Sydney Silverman, and Sam's West, Inc. WPP, which sold kitchen products under the Wolfgang Puck brand to Sam's Club, owed significant debt to Sam's West. Despite this, WPP initiated a tort lawsuit against Tramontina U.S.A., Inc. and Sam's West. After a final judgment was entered against WPP, Sam's West filed a supplemental lawsuit to pierce WPP's corporate veil and hold Silverman personally liable for WPP's unpaid judgments. Silverman, who used a shared bank account for his personal and WPP's corporate funds, allegedly spent over $3 million from the shared account on personal expenses and transfers to himself and his relatives.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of Sam's West, piercing the corporate veil and holding Silverman personally liable for the judgments against WPP. The court adopted a Report and Recommendation (R&R) that determined Silverman was the alter ego of WPP, but did not establish the remaining elements of improper conduct or causing an injury. Both parties then moved for summary judgment regarding these elements. The court adopted a second R&R stating that the undisputed facts showed Sam's West was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its veil piercing claim.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Silverman appealed the district court's decision, alleging that the court improperly pierced the corporate veil on summary judgment. After reviewing the case, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the three elements for piercing the corporate veil in Florida: Silverman was the alter ego of WPP; Silverman used WPP for the improper purpose of evading Florida's Rule of Priorities; and this improper use of WPP's corporate form caused injury to Sam's West. Therefore, the court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Sam's West and pierced the corporate veil. View "Sam's West, Inc. v. Silverman" on Justia Law

The Center for a Sustainable Coast and its member, Karen Grainey, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, alleging that the Corps had issued a dock permit without a full environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Center claimed that several of its members regularly visit Cumberland Island, where the dock is located, and suffer an ongoing aesthetic injury due to the dock's presence. The Center argued that the environmental review the Corps skipped could have protected that interest.The district court dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that the Center did not have standing because its harm was not redressable. The court reasoned that since the dock had already been built, the court’s ability to provide relief had ended along with construction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the Center had standing to bring at least one of its procedural rights claims. The court reasoned that the Center had identified a concrete aesthetic interest and pleaded that the NEPA process would protect that interest. Directing full NEPA review would thus redress the Center’s procedural injury. Furthermore, the permit issued by the Corps authorized not just the construction of the dock, but also its continued existence. Therefore, the case was not moot because the challenged project was already completed. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Seashore Act claim, as the Center abandoned that argument on appeal. View "Center for a Sustainable Coast v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. and Oxford Mall, LLC. Oxford Mall purchased a shopping center in a 2017 foreclosure sale and began a significant redevelopment plan. J.C. Penney, a tenant at the mall since 1968, had a lease that included the right to approve certain changes to the mall’s site plan. When J.C. Penney sought to exercise one of its remaining contractual options, Oxford denied the request, claiming that J.C. Penney was out of extension options. This led to a lawsuit filed by J.C. Penney in 2019, invoking the district court’s diversity jurisdiction.The case proceeded for two years under the assumption that diversity jurisdiction existed. However, in 2020, Oxford discovered that it was a citizen of Delaware, the same as J.C. Penney, which destroyed the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Despite this, Oxford continued to litigate in federal court and did not inform the court of the lack of jurisdiction until April 2021, after several unfavorable rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to impose sanctions on Oxford Mall, LLC for its bad faith conduct. The court found that Oxford had actual knowledge that it was a citizen of Delaware, which destroyed the court’s diversity jurisdiction, and that Oxford's delay in disclosing the lack of diversity jurisdiction was strategic. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of fees owed to J.C. Penney and in refusing to consider an irrelevant and untimely affidavit from Oxford's attorney. View "J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. v. Oxford Mall, LLC" on Justia Law

Angela Poer, a white woman, was employed as an Administrative Services Manager by the Jefferson County Commission. She alleged that her supervisor, a black woman, discriminated against her based on her race. Poer claimed that her request for a lateral transfer or reassignment was denied and that she was ultimately terminated due to her race. She sought damages including reinstatement and back pay.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commission, finding that Poer failed to present any evidence showing that she was terminated or discriminated against because of her race. The court also declined to consider Poer’s argument that the Commission’s employment decisions were forms of retaliation in response to her grievances, as this argument was raised for the first time at summary judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court found that Poer had not presented a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would support even an inference at summary judgment, let alone a jury finding at trial, that the Commission terminated her because of her race. The court also agreed with the district court that Poer could not raise a retaliation claim for the first time at summary judgment. View "Poer v. Jefferson County Commission" on Justia Law