Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants after a Navy aircraft crashed during a training exercise, killing her husband and everyone else on board. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court's order was not "final" under the collateral order doctrine where the court could not engage in an individualized jurisdictional inquiry to determine whether a decision fits into the small category of collateral order decisions. In this case, defendants' argument that an immediate appeal was necessary to stop a jury from second-guessing the Navy's decisions turned on the Navy's choice of the aircraft, selection of the mission speed and altitude, and instructions in the training manual, all of which were facts peculiar to this case. The court also held that it could not exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) because the court would be required to decide whether the district court properly applied settled political question doctrine principles to the facts or evidence of this particular case. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeals; vacated the order granting permission to appeal under section 1292(b); denied the petition for permission to appeal under that statute; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Nice v. L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants after a Navy aircraft crashed during a training exercise, killing her husband and everyone else on board. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court's order was not "final" under the collateral order doctrine where the court could not engage in an individualized jurisdictional inquiry to determine whether a decision fits into the small category of collateral order decisions. In this case, defendants' argument that an immediate appeal was necessary to stop a jury from second-guessing the Navy's decisions turned on the Navy's choice of the aircraft, selection of the mission speed and altitude, and instructions in the training manual, all of which were facts peculiar to this case. The court also held that it could not exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) because the court would be required to decide whether the district court properly applied settled political question doctrine principles to the facts or evidence of this particular case. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeals; vacated the order granting permission to appeal under section 1292(b); denied the petition for permission to appeal under that statute; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Nice v. L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace LLC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of the Board's motion to dismiss plaintiff's action, which alleged national origin discrimination, retaliation, and harassment in violation of Title VII. The court remanded with instructions to allow plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint, holding that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's case with prejudice because he never clearly indicated that he did not want to amend, and because a more carefully crafted complaint might be able to state a claim. In this case, the deficiencies in plaintiff's complaint might be curable and plaintiff could amend the complaint to name the proper defendant. View "Woldeab v. DeKalb County Board of Education" on Justia Law

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine can not bar a federal suit regarding events occurring long after the entry of a state court decision. Long after a state court lawsuit had been completed between Specialty Marketing and Target Media, Specialty Marketing mailed out a letter including the state court events and trial testimony. Target Media filed a defamation action against Specialty Marketing, seeking injunctive relief and damages. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the defamation case, holding that the district court improperly denied subject matter jurisdiction and erroneously dismissed Target Media's defamation claim on Rooker-Feldman grounds. The court held there was no reasonable opportunity to raise the instant claim in Alabama's state courts, and the claim was not "inextricably intertwined" with the judgment rendered in Alabama court. View "Target Media Partners v. Specialty Marketing Corp." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the appropriate limitations period to be applied to post-judgment discovery. The Florida Supreme Court answered: Under Florida law, post-judgment discovery for the purpose of collecting a federal money judgment issued by a federal court in Florida "is permitted for a period of twenty years from the date the judgment was entered." In light of the state court's guidance, the Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs' motion to compel post-judgment discovery was timely. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Salinas v. Ramsey" on Justia Law

An affidavit which satisfies Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may create an issue of material fact and preclude summary judgment even if it is self-serving and uncorroborated. Because this principle applies in all civil cases, including those in the realm of tax law, the Eleventh Circuit, en banc, overruled that portion of Mays v. United States, 763 F.2d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 1985), which is (or may be interpreted to be) to the contrary. In this case concerning IRS assessments, the court remanded with instructions for the panel to consider the government's arguments, as well as defendant's answers to them. View "United States v. Stein" on Justia Law

Cita Trust appealed the district court's dismissal of its complaint against Fifth Third Bank in a commercial contract dispute action. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by dismissing the complaint as untimely and enforcing the contractual one-year limitation period. In this case, the agreement's limitation provision was reasonable, clear, and unambiguous. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Cita leave to amend its complaint, because Cita did not properly move for leave to amend. View "Cita Trust Company AG v. Fifth Third Bank" on Justia Law

When a litigant files a shotgun pleading, is represented by counsel, and fails to request leave to amend, a district court must sua sponte give him one chance to replead before dismissing his case with prejudice on non-merits shotgun pleading grounds. In the repleading order, the district court should explain how the offending pleading violates the shotgun pleading rule so that the party may properly avoid future shotgun pleadings. Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his Second Amended Complaint (SAC) with prejudice. In this case, the district court sua sponte gave plaintiff a chance to replead and remedy his shotgun pleading issues. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal with prejudice. The court remanded for the limited purpose of clarifying that the dismissal of the state law claims was without prejudice as to refiling in state court. The court affirmed on all other issues. View "Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets" on Justia Law

An order denying a motion to quash a subpoena is a final, appealable order in proceedings brought under 28 U.S.C. 1782. Applicants, minority shareholders of Acheron, applied to the district court under 28 U.S.C. 1782 for an order requiring Litai to produce certain discovery for use in foreign proceedings. The district court granted the application and issued subpoenas. On appeal, Litai challenged the district court's order denying its motion to quash and granted Applicants' cross-motion to compel. The Eleventh Circuit determined that it had jurisdiction over the appeal and held, on the merits, that the district court did not err by concluding that the discovery sought was for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal. As part of the process, Applicants have the right to submit information for the investigating judge's consideration. View "In re Application of Furstenberg Finance SAS v. Litai Assets LLC" on Justia Law

In 2011 and 2012, a number of individuals and closely held corporations known as Treasure Your Success (TYS) operated a fraudulent credit card interest reduction scheme. Universal Processing Services of Wisconsin, LLC (Universal) violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 C.F.R. 310.1 et seq., by providing substantial assistance to the TYS schemers. The district court found that a violation of the TSR constitutes an “unfair or deceptive act or practice” in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. As such, the district court was authorized to order restitution and disgorgement. Furthermore, the court clarified that substantial assistance under the TSR was itself sufficient to justify joint and several liability. The court reaffirmed its order holding Universal jointly and severally liable; Universal contended that was error and joint and several liability can only lie where the defendant is a participant in a common enterprise with the primary violators. The Eleventh Circuit concluded after review the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding Universal jointly and severally liable with the members of the TYS scheme. View "Federal Trade Comm'r v. Universal Processing Services of Wisconsin, LLC" on Justia Law