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

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed appeals from Eric Robert Rudolph, who had pled guilty to six federal arson charges and four counts of using a destructive device during a crime of violence in order to avoid the death penalty. As part of his plea deal, Rudolph had waived his rights to appeal his conviction and sentence, and to collaterally attack his sentence in any post-conviction proceeding. Despite this, Rudolph filed two petitions for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to vacate several of his sentences. He argued that his convictions for using an explosive during a crime of violence were unlawful in light of new Supreme Court precedent.The Eleventh Circuit found that Rudolph’s § 2255 motions were, in fact, collateral attacks on his sentences, which his plea agreements did not permit. The court held that § 2255 is a mechanism for attacking sentences, not convictions. The court also rejected Rudolph's argument that his appeal waivers were unenforceable because he hadn't known he was waiving the right to collaterally attack his convictions, pointing out that the waivers explicitly included motions under § 2255. The court further declined to adopt a so-called "miscarriage of justice" exception to the enforceability of appeal waivers, which some other courts have recognized. The court affirmed the district courts' decisions denying Rudolph’s § 2255 motions. View "Rudolph v. United States" on Justia Law

In this case, three individuals and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), an advocacy group, challenged a Georgia law that prohibits individuals under the age of 21 from obtaining licenses to carry firearms. They sued three county probate judges, who issue carry licenses, and Georgia’s Commissioner of Public Safety, who designs the carry license application form. The district court dismissed the case, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue any of the defendants and that the case was both moot and unripe. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs have standing to sue the probate judges, but not the Commissioner of Public Safety. The court found that the plaintiffs' alleged injury - the inability to carry firearms due to their age - is traceable to the actions of the probate judges who issue the licenses, and could be redressed by a court order directed at them. However, the court held that the plaintiffs' injuries are not fairly traceable to, nor redressable by a court order against, the Commissioner of Public Safety, who merely designs the application form and lacks enforcement authority. The court also held that the case was neither moot nor unripe with respect to the probate judges, reversing the district court's dismissal of the case in part and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Baughcum v. Jackson" on Justia Law

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Court reviewed a case involving the estates of two patients who passed away after undergoing liposuction procedures at CJL Healthcare, LLC in Georgia. After the patients' deaths, their estates filed lawsuits against the clinic and its doctor. The clinic's insurer, Prime Insurance Co., defended the clinic under a reservation of rights but ultimately withdrew its defense after the costs of defending the lawsuits exhausted the insurance coverage.The estates of the patients and the clinic then filed a lawsuit against the insurers, Prime Insurance Co., Prime Holdings Insurance Services, and Evolution Insurance Brokers, claiming they had breached their duties, contract, and acted negligently. They also claimed the insurers had unlawfully sold surplus lines insurance. The district court dismissed the case, and the plaintiffs appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The Court held that the policy unambiguously provided a $50,000 limit for a single professional liability claim and a $100,000 aggregate limit for all claims. The Court further held that the insurers' duty to defend the clinic ended when the policy limits were exhausted by payment of damages and claim expenses. The Court also affirmed the district court's finding that the Georgia Surplus Lines Insurance Act did not provide a private cause of action for the unauthorized sale of surplus lines insurance. View "Jumlist v. Prime Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Joseph Sanfilippo, the defendant, appealed his conviction for wire fraud, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because it was issued after the expiration of the federal statute of limitations. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Sanfilippo's appeal. The court reasoned that Sanfilippo had entered an unconditional guilty plea to one of eight counts in the indictment and, under precedent, waived his ability to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. The court found no evidence in the record indicating that the district court and the government had consented to Sanfilippo reserving his ability to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, which would be required for a conditional plea under Rule 11(a)(2). Therefore, the court concluded that Sanfilippo's plea was not conditional under Rule 11(a)(2), and he had waived his ability to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. View "USA v. Sanfilippo" on Justia Law

In this case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Robert Franklyn Lodge, a native and citizen of Jamaica, challenged the constitutionality of a federal law regarding derivative citizenship. Lodge, born out of wedlock and abandoned by his mother, was brought to the United States by his naturalized father. After being convicted of aggravated felonies, the Department of Homeland Security sought to remove Lodge, who argued that he had derived citizenship from his father under a since-repealed statute. The immigration judge ordered Lodge removed to Jamaica, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Lodge’s appeal.Lodge argued that the former statute discriminated against unmarried fathers based on sex and against black children based on race. He asked the court to declare him a citizen, arguing that the statute, if cured of its constitutional defects, would have permitted his father to transmit citizenship to him. However, the court found that Lodge would not have derived citizenship from his father even under a version of the statute cured of its alleged constitutional defects. Consequently, the court denied Lodge's petition for review and deemed his motion to transfer as moot. View "Lodge v. United States Attorney General" on Justia Law

In a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, plaintiffs Jennifer Dupree and Detrich Battle challenged the dismissal of their Title V claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on the basis of sovereign immunity. Dupree, who worked for the Georgia Department of Human Services, and Battle, an employee of the Georgia Department of Corrections, had requested accommodations at their respective workplaces due to their health conditions. After their requests were denied and their employment terminated, they filed claims under Title V, alleging retaliation.The court, however, found that sovereign immunity applies to Title V claims when brought in conjunction with Title I claims. This meant that the plaintiffs' claims could not proceed. Importantly, the court clarified that dismissals based on sovereign immunity, a jurisdictional issue, should be entered without prejudice. Not specifying this in the dismissal could lead to misunderstandings about the nature of the dismissal. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to dismiss the case without prejudice. View "Dupree v. Owens" on Justia Law

In a personal injury lawsuit, Carelyn Fylling sued Royal Caribbean Cruises for negligence after she tripped, fell, and hit her head while entering a deck on one of their cruise ships. The case was tried before a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. During the trial, the court became aware that one of the jurors had a niece who worked for Royal Caribbean. Despite this potential conflict of interest, the court did not remove or question this juror about any potential bias, and allowed her to participate in deliberations. The jury found Royal Caribbean negligent, but also found Fylling comparative-negligent, reducing her recovery by ninety percent. Fylling appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the lower court abused its discretion by not investigating the potential bias of the juror related to an employee of the defendant.The Eleventh Circuit agreed with Fylling. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by not investigating whether the juror could impartially discharge her responsibilities once it became aware of her potential bias. The court explained that when a district court becomes aware of potential juror bias, it is required to develop the factual circumstances sufficiently to make an informed judgment as to whether bias exists. A district court's obligation to protect the right to an impartial jury does not end when the jury is impaneled and sworn. The Eleventh Circuit therefore reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Fylling v. Royal Carribean Cruises, Ltd." on Justia Law

Robert Franklyn Lodge, a native and citizen of Jamaica, was brought to the United States by his father, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen. After Lodge was convicted of aggravated felonies, the Department of Homeland Security sought to remove him. Lodge argued that he had derived citizenship from his father under a statute that has been repealed. The immigration judge ordered Lodge removed to Jamaica, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. Lodge argued that the former statute discriminated against unmarried fathers based on sex and against black children based on race, and that he should have been granted citizenship if the statute were free of these constitutional defects. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Lodge's petition for review, concluding that he lacked standing to raise these constitutional challenges. The court found that Lodge's injury (removal from the U.S. due to non-citizenship) was not traceable to the sex classification in the statute, because even under a sex-neutral version of the statute, Lodge would not have derived citizenship from his father, because his mother's maternity was established. The court did not address the merits of Lodge's arguments about race and sex discrimination or whether he had third-party standing to assert his father's right to equal protection. Lodge's motion to transfer was denied as moot. View "Lodge v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence of Jonathan Daniels, who was found guilty of ten counts of Hobbs Act robbery and sentenced to 180 months imprisonment. Daniels challenged the conviction on several grounds. He argued that the district court erred by not accepting his proposed jury instruction on eyewitness identifications, that cumulative evidentiary errors prejudiced his right to a fair trial, and that the evidence was insufficient to convict him under Count 7 of the superseding indictment. He also contended that the sentence he received was unreasonable. The Court of Appeals disagreed with all of Daniels' arguments, finding that the district court had not abused its discretion in its jury instruction, that there were no cumulative errors that compromised Daniels' right to a fair trial, and that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict him under Count 7. The court also found that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The court thus affirmed Daniels' convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Daniels" on Justia Law

Maria Blanco, the plaintiff, worked as a nanny and housekeeper for Anand Samuel and Dr. Lindsey Finch (the defendants), for three years, working for 79 hours each week. Blanco filed a lawsuit to collect overtime wages for 39 hours of the 79 hours she worked each week. The defendants disputed Blanco’s claim for overtime pay, arguing that she fell under a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that exempts “any employee who is employed in domestic service in a household and who resides in such household” from receiving overtime compensation. The district court agreed with the defendants, ruling that Blanco “resided” in their house, and hence was exempted from overtime compensation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, however, disagreed with the lower court's decision. The court of appeals concluded that Blanco did not “reside” in the defendants’ house, as she maintained a separate residence and left the defendants’ house after each of her shifts. Therefore, Blanco was not exempted from overtime pay under the FLSA. The court of appeals also concluded that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the defendants were Blanco’s employer, which the lower court needed to resolve on remand. Thus, the court of appeals vacated the district court’s decision in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Blanco v. Samuel" on Justia Law