Justia Civil Procedure Opinion SummariesArticles Posted in U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
The Royalty Network, Inc., et al. v. Harris, et al.
Defendant and his company, Phat Groov Music, appealed the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss a complaint filed by the Royalty Network and others. The court concluded that it had appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and affirmed the district court's order because Georgia's anti-SLAPP statute, O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1, does not apply in federal court in a diversity action. View "The Royalty Network, Inc., et al. v. Harris, et al." on Justia Law
Cummings v. Dept. of Corrections, et al.
Plaintiff filed suit against four prison officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and seeking money damages. The jury returned a verdict for the defense and plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that a sleeping juror should have been removed from the jury. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion and defendants moved for reconsideration. The Magistrate Judge then granted the motion for reconsideration and denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiff could not get a "second bite of the apple" after the jury returned an unfavorable verdict when he was aware of the juror's purported misconduct and declined to object to her retention on the jury at trial. View "Cummings v. Dept. of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law
Goodwin v. Reynolds, et al.
Plaintiffs filed suit in state court against defendants, alleging theories of negligence, vicarious liability, and premises liability. Although one defendant is a citizen of the forum state, two non-forum defendants removed the case to federal court before the forum defendant had yet been served. The district court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) so that plaintiff could refile in state court in such a manner as to irrefutably trigger the forum-defendant rule and preclude a second removal. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion and, assuming arguendo, that this case was removable, the court held that on the particular facts of the case defendants did not lose any substantial right by the dismissal. View "Goodwin v. Reynolds, et al." on Justia Law
Medical Assoc. of GA, et al. v. Wellpoint, Inc.
In 2000, physicians and physician associations imitated a group of class actions against various providers of health plans, which were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation. This appeal involves this complex, twelve-year-old multidistrict litigation, a related multidistrict litigation pending in another federal district, and whether the district court reasonably interpreted the Settlement Agreement in the first action. The court affirmed the Injunction as to plaintiffs' Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, and antitrust claims and as to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., claims based on the denial or underpayment of benefits following the Settlement Agreement's Effective Date. On remand, the district court will need to determine which of plaintiffs' ERISA claims fall on the permissible side of the line, and reconsider the assessment of sanctions. View "Medical Assoc. of GA, et al. v. Wellpoint, Inc." on Justia Law
Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County
Hillcrest filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging a Right-of-Way Preservation Ordinance. The court concluded that Hillcrest's facial substantive due process claim accrued when the Ordinance was enacted on November 22, 2005, and was time-barred when Hillcrest filed this action more than five years later. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order to the extent that it granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction in favor of Hillcrest on its facial substantive due process claim. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County" on Justia Law
Kong v. Allied Professional Ins. Co.
Plaintiff sought to enforce against Allied a tort judgment she received against a person Allied insured. Plaintiff initially filed suit in state court and Allied removed based on diversity jurisdiction. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the district court erred in denying her motion to remand to state court. The court concluded that the district court properly denied plaintiff's motion to remand because her claim against Allied was not a direct action within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1332(c). The court found no error in the district court's order compelling arbitration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Kong v. Allied Professional Ins. Co." on Justia Law
GDG Acquisitions, LLC v. Government of Belize
GDG filed suit, alleging that the Government of Belize breached a contract for the lease of office telecommunications. The district court dismissed based on the doctrines of forum non conveniens and international comity without reaching the merits of the dispute. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing for forum non conveniens without first evaluating the significance of a forum-selection clause in the underlying contract. Accordingly, the court vacated the forum non conveniens dismissal and remanded to allow the district court to determine the enforceability and significance of the forum-selection clause. The court also vacated the district court's dismissal on the alternative ground of international comity where retrospective international comity did not apply without a judgment from a foreign tribunal or parallel foreign proceedings and where prospective international comity did not apply to this commercial contract dispute. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "GDG Acquisitions, LLC v. Government of Belize" on Justia Law
Hawes v. Gleicher
Plaintiff filed suit against MAM, a Delaware corporation. Plaintiff was a MAM secured creditor and he held two Convertible Promissory Notes. Plaintiff's complaint alleged claims related to the Security Agreement that each note was secured by. MAM failed to respond to plaintiff's complaint and two weeks after plaintiff moved for entry of default judgment, Michael Gleicher moved to intervene in the case. Gleicher sought leave to intervene in two capacities: (1) as a MAM general creditor holding two Convertible Promissory Notes; and (2) as a MAM shareholder. The court concluded that Gleicher cited no source giving a general creditor a right to defend his debtor from another general creditor for the sole purpose of defeating the latter's claim. Further, Gleicher cited no source giving a corporation's shareholder the right to intervene in a suit brought against the corporation by one of its creditors for the sole purpose of defeating the creditor's claim. Gleicher has not established, nor could he, that he suffered an injury-in-fact as a result of plaintiff's filing of this lawsuit. Therefore, Gleicher lacked standing to intervene and he lacked standing to appeal the district court's final judgment. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Hawes v. Gleicher" on Justia Law
Plaintiff A, et al. v. Schair, et al.
Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. 1595, alleging that he engaged in for-profit "sex tourism" in the Amazon River Basin through his boat touring company, Wet-A-Line tours. Because of ongoing U.S. investigations into defendant's conduct, plaintiffs did not oppose the entry of a stay under section 1595(b). Almost a year later, plaintiffs moved to lift the stay based on a perceived lack of prosecution by the U.S. government. Ultimately, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to lift the court's prior stay of the civil action. Defendants brought an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order lifting the stay. The court concluded that an order lifting a stay was not a final decision that was appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Because the collateral order doctrine did not extend to orders lifting stays of section 1595 cases, the court dismissed defendants' interlocutory appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Plaintiff A, et al. v. Schair, et al." on Justia Law