Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against the County after he suffered injuries while aboard a vessel traveling in the Coral Park Canal, a drainage canal in the County. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. At issue is whether a canal is navigable for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1333, if an artificial obstruction prevents vessels from using the canal to conduct interstate commerce. Because the Coral Park Canal cannot support interstate commerce, the court concluded that it cannot satisfy the location requirement of admiralty jurisdiction. The court concluded that extending jurisdiction to waters incapable of commercial activity serves no purpose of admiralty jurisdiction. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's injuries did not occur on navigable waters for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction because an artificial obstruction prevents vessels from traveling from the Coral Park Canal to places outside of Florida. View "Tundidor v. Miami-Dade County" on Justia Law

Between June 15, 2012, and November 15, 2012, the District Court entered a series of orders granting summary judgment and assessing attorneys’ fees and costs in favor of Crum & Forster in a suit about the scope of an insurance policy under Florida law brought by Hartford. Hartford appealed and the court ordered the parties to take part in a mediation conference. After mediation failed to resolve Hartford's appeal, a second mediation resulted in a conditional settlement agreement. The court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay Hartford’s initial appeal, so the parties could file their motion to vacate those orders in the district court pursuant to Rule 60(b). The district court, invoking the Supreme Court’s U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Company v. Bonner Mall Partnership decision, concluded that there are no “exceptional circumstances” warranting vacatur of the contested orders. The court followed the approach taken by the First and Second Circuits, which embraces the equitable nature of the Supreme Court’s Bancorp inquiry. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion where it misapplied Bancorp because of the exceptional circumstances in this case. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated. View "Hartford Accident & Indem. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins." on Justia Law

The Secretary determined that Bayou Shores was not in substantial compliance with the Medicare program participation requirements, and that conditions in its facility constituted an immediate jeopardy to residents’ health and safety. The bankruptcy court assumed authority over Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements as part of the debtor’s estate, enjoined the Secretary from terminating the provider agreements, determined for itself that Bayou Shores was qualified to participate in the provider agreements, required the Secretary to maintain the stream of monetary benefit under the agreements, reorganized the debtor’s estate, and finally issued its Confirmation Order. The district court upheld the Secretary’s jurisdictional challenge and reversed the Confirmation Order with respect to the assumption of the debtor’s Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements. The court concluded that the statutory revision in this case does not demonstrate Congress's clear intention to vest the bankruptcy courts with jurisdiction over Medicare claims. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court that the bankruptcy court erred as a matter of law when it exercised subject matter jurisdiction over the provider agreements in this case. The bankruptcy court was without 28 U.S.C. 1334 jurisdiction under the 42 U.S.C. 405(h) bar to issue orders enjoining the termination of the provider agreements and to further order the assumption of the provider agreements. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Florida Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Bayou Shores" on Justia Law

After plaintiffs filed suit against Miami-Dade under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721–2725, the district court dismissed the claims as time-barred. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that their claims were not barred and the district court erred by not applying the discovery rule to 28 U.S.C. 1658(a). In regard to this issue of first impression, the court adopted the reasoning and conclusion of the Eighth Circuit in McDonough v. Anoka Cnty and concluded that a DPPA claim accrues under section 1658(b) when the violation occurs. In this case, the only alleged DPPA violations that implicate Miami-Dade occurred on January 10, 2008 and May 26, 2005. Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint against Miami-Dade on March 7, 2014, well beyond the four-year statute of limitations for DPPA claims. Because the district court properly applied the occurrence rule to section 1658(a), the court affirmed the judgment. View "Foudy v. Miami-Dade Cnty." on Justia Law

In entertaining defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law after a jury trial, the district court applied the filing deadline found in the Federal Civil Rules and thus found the motion timely. The court disagreed and held that when trying a case arising under title 11 of the United States Code, a district court (just like a bankruptcy court) must apply the filing deadline found in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure when addressing a Rule 50(b) motion. The court vacated the district court's order granting defendants relief and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury's award because, under the Federal Bankruptcy Rules, defendants' Rule 50(b) post-trial motion was untimely. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9015 requires that such motions be filed no later than 14 days after entry of judgment. In this case, defendants filed their renewed motion 28 days after the entry of judgment. View "Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XIV, LLC" on Justia Law

Tamaz, a Saudi Arabian company, appealed the denial of its Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion to vacate a default judgment against it as void for lack of service of process. Tamaz argues that the district court erred in concluding that De Gazelle had properly served it using Federal Express, when that means of service is not specifically authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and De Gazelle had not received prior court authorization to serve Tamaz using that method. The court agreed, concluding that when De Gazelle FedExed the summons and complaint to Tamaz’s post office box on September 21, 2013, it was not acting pursuant to a court order. In fact, De Gazelle did not seek court authorization to serve Tamaz via Federal Express until the magistrate judge denied its first motion for a default judgment on the ground that De Gazelle failed to show that service via FedEx was authorized under Rule 4. Furthermore, the magistrate judge’s reliance, in later finding that service had been effected on September 21, 2013, on evidence showing that Althawadi, Tamaz’s registered agent, had actual notice of the lawsuit was misplaced, since notice does not confer personal jurisdiction on a defendant when it has not been served in accordance with Rule 4. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "De Gazelle Group, Inc. v. Tamaz Trading Establishment" on Justia Law

Bersin filed suit, alleging that it had been induced into investing more than $350,000 in a BWB franchise through fraud and misrepresentations, some of which concerned OBWB’s advertising of patented technology. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to enjoin Bersin from prosecuting its case against OBWB in state court; nor did the district court err in declining to hold Bersin in contempt. The court concluded that the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 2283, deprived the district court of the power to enjoin Bersin from prosecuting its state court suit. Even if the district court had the power to issue such an injunction, it would have been improper on the merits to bind Bersin to a settlement release it had no part in negotiating and from which it obtained no benefit. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "The Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Co., Inc. v. Bersin Bagel Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the State Bar, alleging a due process claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the State Bar’s rules applied the same standards and procedures for reinstatement for disbarred attorneys to attorneys suspended for more than 90 days, amounted to “defacto disbarment,” and violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The district court dismissed the complaint as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and then denied plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment. Determining that the court has jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's appeal, the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the Alabama State Bar is an arm of the state of Alabama and thus enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from plaintiff's section 1983 claim. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's FRCP 59(e) motion where, to the extent plaintiff contends his due process claim was a “direct action” under the Fourteenth Amendment, his amended complaint did not allege such a claim, and he could not use his Rule 59(e) motion to do so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Nichols v. Alabama State Bar" on Justia Law

The court originally remanded this case to the district court for additional fact-finding to establish complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants with instructions to reenter summary judgment if federal subject-matter jurisdiction could be properly established. After dismissing a nondiverse plaintiff it found was not a real party in interest to this case, the district court reentered its earlier grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer on all claims. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of PMI Delaware and its grant of summary judgment to Lexington. The court concluded that the district court's dismissal of PMI Delaware pursuant to FRCP 21 as a "nominal or formal party" was proper because the district court found that though PMI Delaware was a named insured on the Insurance Policy, PMI Delaware would not be entitled to any portion of a successful judgment against Lexington because PMI Florida, not PMI Delaware, was the party against whom Blue Cross had filed suit and PMI Florida, not PMI Delaware, was the only party that made a claim for coverage to Lexington. Further, PMI Delaware was not even a party to the underlying Blue Cross contract, which provided healthcare coverage only to PMI Florida’s leased employees. Further, the court affirmed the district court's holding that Lexington owed no coverage to PMI Florida. Here, the court saw no contractual ambiguity; the Insurance Policy issued by Lexington explicitly excludes the coverage sought by PMI Florida. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Lexington on PMI Florida’s claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. Finally, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Lexington on its claim of negligent misrepresentation where no jury could reasonably find that Yoohoo justifiably relied on the statement at issue as an indication that there would be coverage under the policy. View "Payroll Mgmt., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Twenty-one months after plaintiff filed an employment discrimination case against US Steel, she filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. When U.S. Steel learned of the bankruptcy case - that plaintiff's Chapter 7 petition had not disclosed the employment-discrimination claims she was pursuing and that the Chapter 7 Trustee was treating the bankruptcy as a “no asset” case and had filed a Report of No Distribution with the bankruptcy court - it moved the district court alternatively to dismiss the case or for summary judgment. The district court concluded that the doctrine of judicial estoppel as formulated in Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., and Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., controlled its decision. The court concluded that New Hampshire v. Maine did not govern the district court's application of judicial estoppel in this case. Therefore, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the district court erred in failing to give the New Hampshire factors appropriate weight and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring her claims on the basis of judicial estoppel. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not err in applying Eleventh Circuit precedent, namely Burnes and Robinson, where the bankruptcy court in those cases accepted the debtor's failure to disclose as property of the bankruptcy estate claims the debtor was litigating in federal district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Slater v. US Steel Corp." on Justia Law