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

Pace (a company that sells and services garage doors) sued a competitor, Overhead Garage Door (“OGD”) (a company that also offers garage door services), alleging a host of federal and state law violations relating to OGD’s trade practices. Pace and Overhead Door Corporation (a garage door manufacturer that is not a party to this case but that has a name noticeably similar to Defendant OGD, its competition) have a licensing agreement in which Pace is the licensee, and Overhead Door Corporation is the licensor. As part of this agreement, Pace uses Overhead Door Corporation’s marks. The district court granted summary judgment to OGD on all of Pace’s claims, concluding in large part that Pace could not bring suit because Pace was a nonexclusive licensee that lacked sufficient ownership rights in Overhead Door Corporation’s marks and because OGD and Overhead Door Corporation’s settlement agreement extinguished Pace’s claims. Pace timely appealed.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated. The court concluded that Pace may bring its federal and state law claims. The court concluded that the licensing agreement, Pace’s status as a nonexclusive licensee, and the settlement agreement do not bar Pace from bringing its claims under the Lanham Act, state law, or common law. The court explained that although the agreement may prevent OGD and Overhead Door Corporation from suing each other, the settlement agreement is “not . . . binding on . . . current and future licensees.” As such, the settlement agreement is not binding on licensees like Pace and does not prevent Pace from suing View "D.H. Pace Company, Inc. v. OGD Equipment Company, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant falsely arrested him, used excessive force in doing that, and then was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s alleged medical needs. The district court granted Officer Miller’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of summary judgment in part and reversed in part. The court explained that the dash-cam recording from Plaintiff’s interaction with Defendant proves definitively that Defendant did not falsely arrest Plaintiff. And though the dash-cam recording does not resolve Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim, Plaintiff hasn’t shown that any violation Defendant may have committed was clearly established. So Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim as well. As for Plaintiff’s excessive-force claim, the recording did not capture Defendant’s physical arrest of Plaintiff. Accordingly, the court wrote that it must rely on the default summary-judgment rule and assume the truth of Plaintiff’s attestations that Defendant used excessive force in arresting him. Thus the court concluded that the excessive-force claim survives summary judgment. View "Eric K. Brooks v. D Miller" on Justia Law

This appeal centers around section 4(a)(1)–(3) of Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act (the “Act”). Section 4(a)(1)–(3) of the Act states that “no person shall engage in or cause” the prescription or administration of puberty-blocking medication or cross-sex hormone treatment to a minor “for the purpose of attempting to alter the appearance of or affirm the minor’s perception of his or her gender or sex if that appearance or perception is inconsistent with the minor’s sex.” Shortly after the Act was signed into law, a group of transgender minors, their parents, and other concerned individuals challenged the Act’s constitutionality, claiming that it violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As part of that lawsuit, the district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Alabama from enforcing section 4(a)(1)–(3) of the Act.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in issuing this preliminary injunction because it applied the wrong standard of scrutiny. The plaintiffs have not presented any authority that supports the existence of a constitutional right to “treat [one’s] children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standards.” Nor have they shown that section 4(a)(1)–(3) classifies on the basis of sex or any other protected characteristic. Accordingly, section 4(a)(1)–(3) is subject only to rational basis review. The court explained that the district court erred by reviewing the statute under a heightened standard of scrutiny, its determination that Paintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits cannot stand. View "Paul Eknes-Tucker, et al. v. Governor of the State of Alabama, et al." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling entering judgment in favor of the US in a negligence suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”).  The Seneca was piloted by Nisha Sejwal, with Ralph Knight accompanying her. The Cessna was piloted by Jorge Sanchez, with Carlo Scarpati, a student pilot, also on board. Both planes were “VFR” aircraft operating under standard visual flight rules. The Seneca was departing from, and the Cessna was arriving at, the Tamiami Airport (now known as the Miami Executive Airport) when the collision occurred. The representatives of the pilots’ estates filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), alleging negligence on the part of Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) air traffic controllers at the Tamiami Airport. Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the United States, and the Plaintiffs appealed.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Plaintiffs contend that language in the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law “suggests” that it improperly considered evidence of comparative negligence—an affirmative defense under Florida law—in making its ultimate finding that the controllers were not negligent. In particular, they point to the district court’s statements that there was (1) conflicting evidence about how the planes approached each other prior to the collision and (2) evidence that both planes were equipped with TIS devices and that the Seneca’s TIS device was functioning earlier in the day prior to the collision. The court concluded that the district court did not improperly consider evidence of comparative negligence but rather based its decision on Plaintiffs’ failure to prove the elements of their negligence claim. View "Perry Hodges, et al. v. USA" on Justia Law

Following the disclosures of the new information, Grupo Unidos challenged the impartiality of the arbitrators before the International Court of Arbitration (“ICA”) of the International Chamber of Commerce. The ICA agreed that some arbitrators failed to make a few disclosures but, notably, did not find any basis for removal and rejected Grupo Unidos’s challenges on the merits. Thereafter, Grupo Unidos moved -- unsuccessfully -- for the vacatur of the awards in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Autoridad del Canal de Panama, in turn, cross-moved for confirmation of the awards, which the district court granted. Grupo Unidos appealed.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court agreed with the International Court of Arbitration and the district court that Grupo Unidos has presented nothing that comes near the high threshold required for vacatur. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of vacatur and the confirmation of the awards. The court wrote that there is no indication in this record that Grupo Unidos did not have a robust opportunity to present evidence and confront the other side’s evidence. View "Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A., et al. v. Autoridad del Canal de Panama" on Justia Law

Defendants Gladden and Linton were convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and mail fraud, and the substantive offenses of health care fraud, mail fraud, and aggravated identity theft, for their roles in a multi-year scheme to defraud insurance companies. The government alleged Defendants received inflated reimbursement payments by billing for medically unnecessary and fraudulent prescriptions.The Eleventh Circuit found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict as to all of Linton’s convictions and as to Gladden’s convictions for conspiracy, health care fraud, and mail fraud. In addition, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court did not clearly err in calculating Gladden’s restitution and forfeiture amounts. The Court also vacated Galdden's conviction for aggravated identity theft and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "USA v. John Gladden, et al" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of illegally structuring two separate land-sale contract payments of around $270,000 each. On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Defendant asserts that the court should vacate his conviction due to a plainly erroneous jury instruction.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that in reviewing the record to determine how a jury might reasonably conclude that he structured deposits to avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement, it appears that Defendant made 22 cash deposits below $10,000 over seven days to satisfy the first payment. Then, Defendant made 38 cash deposits under $10,000 over the course of around seven and a half months to satisfy the second payment. there is sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions. The court explained that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, it concludes that a “reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”   Further, the court concluded that the instructions properly listed the statutory elements for structuring in violation of 31 U.S.C. Section 5324(a)(3), and the jury concluded that the government satisfied its burden of proof on these points. That the government could not prove Bird intended to evade Form 4789 specifically does not undermine the soundness of the verdict. Finally, the court explained that Defendant and the government jointly proposed the jury instructions that the district court ultimately used. By supplying the instructions, Defendant invited any purported error. Consequently, the court declined to review his challenge to the jury's instructions. View "USA v. Zachary Bird" on Justia Law

This appeal arises from a multiple-count indictment against dozens of members of the Gangster Disciples. Five of them, Alonzo Walton, Kevin Clayton, Donald Glass, Antarious Caldwell, and Vancito Gumbs, appeal their convictions and sentences following a joint trial. Some argue that the district court should have suppressed wiretap evidence against them. Some argue that their enhanced sentences under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violate the Sixth Amendment because the jury failed to find that the conspiracy involved murder. Several argued that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to play a video about unconscious bias, excluded a professor of social work’s expert opinion testimony, secured the defendants with ankle restraints at trial, allowed the prosecution to store evidentiary firearms in the courtroom, and questioned a witness. And they also brought individual procedural and sentencing challenges.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated one of Caldwell’s convictions and his sentence due to an intervening precedent but otherwise affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court explained that Count 17 of the indictment contemplated that the offense of attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a “crime of violence” within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act. But the Supreme Court recently held in Taylor that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a “crime of violence” under section 924(c).  Thus, the court held that it must vacate Caldwell’s conviction. The court remanded or the district court to resentence Caldwell for his remaining counts of conviction. View "USA v. Antarious Caldwell, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant informed the court that its case was moot and that it had been moot at the time of our decision. Appellee has since confirmed that had dissolved its limited liability company seven weeks before we decided the case, thereby eliminating any possibility of redress. The Eleventh Circuit, thus, granted Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The panel vacated its March 31, 2023 order staying the issuance of the mandate. View "Deborah Laufer v. Arpan LLC" on Justia Law

Following an investigation, Rollins determined that Plaintiff- John Doe violated its sexual misconduct policy. Doe was able to graduate and receive his undergraduate degree but was not allowed to participate in commencement/graduation ceremonies. Rollins imposed a sanction of dismissal, resulting in permanent separation of Doe without the opportunity for readmission; privilege restrictions, including a prohibition on participating in alumni reunion events on or off campus; and a contact restriction as to Roe. Doe sued Rollins in federal court, asserting two claims under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681—one for selective enforcement and one for erroneous outcome—and a third claim under Florida law for breach of contract. Following discovery, the district court excluded the opinions proffered by Doe’s expert as to Rollins’ purported gender bias. Then, on cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court (a) entered summary judgment in favor of Rollins on the Title IX claims and (b) entered partial summary judgment in favor of Doe on the breach of contract claim.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding Doe’s expert from presenting opinions about Rollins’ purported gender bias and that it correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Rollins on Doe’s two Title IX claims. On the breach of contract claim, the court wrote that it cannot review Doe’s challenge to the district court’s partial denial of summary judgment because materiality is not a purely legal issue under Florida law and was later resolved by the jury. View "John Doe v. Rollins College" on Justia Law