Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia regarding a dispute over the enforceability of a restrictive covenant in Georgia. The plaintiff, Charles Baldwin, had worked for various franchisees of Express Oil Change, LLC, and was asked to sign a restrictive covenant as a condition of receiving a payment after the franchisees' stores were sold to Express. The covenant restricted Baldwin from engaging in certain competitive business activities for a specified duration and within a specified geographic area. After leaving Express, Baldwin sued, seeking a declaration that the covenant was unenforceable under the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act (GRCA). The district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the covenant, finding it unreasonable in terms of its geographic scope and duration. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court correctly concluded that the covenant's geographic scope was unreasonable under the GRCA, but that it applied the wrong presumption in concluding that the covenant's duration was unreasonable. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, dismissed the appeal in part, and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of its preliminary injunction under the proper presumptions. View "Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dealt with the question of when an order finding contempt becomes a final, appealable order. The case arose from a dispute between Robert A. Sweetapple and Asset Enhancement, Inc., in which Sweetapple was found in contempt by a bankruptcy court for violating an automatic stay. The bankruptcy court awarded Asset Enhancement attorney's fees and costs for filing and prosecuting its motion for contempt, but did not specify the amount. The amount was later determined in a subsequent order. Sweetapple appealed the contempt order to the district court, but the district court dismissed his appeal as untimely, reasoning that the contempt order was a final, appealable order when it was issued, not when the amount of the attorney's fees was later determined. Sweetapple then appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.The Eleventh Circuit held that the contempt order did not become a final, appealable order until the bankruptcy court issued the later order setting the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded. The court reasoned that this rule avoided the risk of disrupting ongoing proceedings and was consistent with its precedent. Accordingly, since Sweetapple filed his appeal within fourteen days of the bankruptcy court's issuance of the later order, his appeal of the contempt order was timely and the district court had jurisdiction over the appeal. The court vacated the district court's dismissal of Sweetapple's appeal and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Sweetapple v. Asset Enhancement, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant as next of kin and on behalf of a minor, J.T.A., and all similarly situated minors (“Appellants”), filed a class action lawsuit against the School Board of Volusia County, Florida for allegedly violating the minors’ rights to free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The Appellants appealed the district court’s order dismissing their amended complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the holding in Perez. The court explained that here, Appellants seek compensatory and punitive damages. The IDEA provides neither. Thus, applying Perez to this case, Appellants can proceed without attempting to exhaust administrative remedies that do not exist under the IDEA. Appellants unambiguously sought compensatory monetary damages under the ADA and not compensatory education under the IDEA. Consequently, in light of Perez, the Appellants should have been allowed to proceed with their claims regardless of the IDEA’s exhaustion requirements. View "Kimberly Powell, et al. v. School Board of Volusia County, Florida" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit certified the following two questions to the Florida Supreme Court:(1) does Fla. Stat. § 559.921(1) grant an insurance company a cause of action when a repair shop does not provide any written repair estimate?(2) Do the violations here under the repair act void a repair invoice for completed windshield repairs and preclude a repair shop from being paid any of its invoiced amounts by an insurance company? View "Government Employees Insurance Company, et al v. Glassco, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs s filed a class action complaint and sought to represent a class of individuals whose Healthcare Revenue tradelines had been wrongly “re-aged” by Experian. They alleged that Experian “willfully” violated its obligation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to “follow reasonable procedures” to ensure consumer credit reports were prepared with “maximum possible accuracy” when it allowed credit reports to reflect allegedly inaccurate status dates. The district court denied Experian’s summary judgment motion. After the close of discovery, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all consumers “whose Experian credit reports had an account or accounts reported by [Healthcare Revenue] with an inaccurately displayed Date of Status and were viewed by one or more third parties.” The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied class certification. Plaintiffs petitioned for permission to appeal the district court’s class certification order under Rule 23(f).   The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded. The court held that the denial of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was an abuse of discretion because the district court’s analysis of Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement was based on its contrary interpretation of the second option in section 1681n(a)(1)(A). The court wrote that a consumer alleging a willful violation of the Act doesn’t need to prove actual damages to recover “damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000.” While the parties raise other issues that may ultimately affect whether the class should be certified, the district court’s order denying class certification only relied on its interpretation of section 1681n(a)(1)(A) and didn’t address these other arguments. View "Omar Santos, et al v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and listed PRN Real Estate & Investments, Ltd. (“PRN”) as his primary creditor. PRN sought to exempt debts that Defendant owes PRN from being discharged. The bankruptcy court granted judgment for Defendant on all of PRN’s claims and fully discharged Defendant’s debt. The district court affirmed.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed the bankruptcy court’s rulings and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that it agrees with each of the bankruptcy court’s rulings except one: that PRN pleaded a viable discharge exception in Count 3. The court explained that Congress gave PRN the right to request an exception of COLP’s contribution debt, if PRN can prove that Defendant fraudulently obtained COLP’s money and, as a result, became responsible for COLP’s contribution debt. PRN has pleaded facts that, if proven, meet these requirements. The Trustee’s action to avoid the same fraudulent transfer does not preempt PRN’s right to seek a discharge exception. Because the bankruptcy court dismissed PRN’s claim based on non-viability and lack of standing, the bankruptcy court did not rule on the merits of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Thus, the court remanded the case for the bankruptcy court to determine in the first instance whether any facts material to Count 3 are genuinely disputed and, if not, whether Defendant is entitled to judgment on Count 3. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). View "PRN Real Estate & Investments, Ltd. v. William W. Cole, Jr." on Justia Law

This appeal presents the issue of whether Deputy John Allen and Sheriff Louis Roberts are entitled to qualified and state-agent immunity from Plaintiff’s complaint that he was arrested pursuant to a warrant based on a false affidavit. After Plaintiff drove a methamphetamine trafficker to an undercover drug sting, Allen obtained a warrant from a magistrate judge and arrested him. Florida charged Plaintiff with aiding and abetting drug trafficking and detained him for over six months before dismissing the charges. Plaintiff sued Allen and Roberts under federal and state law, alleging that Allen illegally arrested, detained, and prosecuted him and that Roberts was deliberately indifferent to and negligently caused Allen’s misconduct. The district court granted summary judgment for the officers.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Allen’s warrant affidavit—excluding any false statements—supplied probable cause for Plaintiff’s arrest. The court explained that Plaintiff’s argument that Allen conspired to violate his constitutional rights fails. The court wrote that Plaintiff cannot identify an underlying constitutional violation. “A plaintiff may state a Section 1983 claim for conspiracy to violate constitutional rights by showing a conspiracy existed that resulted in the actual denial of some underlying constitutional right.” Accordingly, in the absence of a constitutional violation, Plaintiff cannot prove a derivative-conspiracy claim. View "Tyler Land v. Sheriff of Jackson County Florida, et al." on Justia Law

Artists (collectively “plaintiffs”) appealed the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the City of Miami Beach on their First Amendment claim brought against the City under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The City contracted with the artists to create and curate a series of artworks that the City would own. The district court entered summary judgment after finding that the City’s removal of one piece of Plaintiffs’ artwork constituted government speech and was immune from First Amendment scrutiny.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiffs argued that “artistic expression” is the type of speech at issue here and concede that it “has sometimes been used to convey government speech.” However, they suggest that the history factor requires the majority of the historical use of a type of speech to have been by the government, as opposed to by private individuals. The court wrote that even assuming, as Plaintiffs contend, that artistic expression has historically been used for private speech more often than government speech, this does not negate the government’s own long historical use of artistic expression to convey messages. The history factor does not require the government to show that it historically commissioned more artwork than private individuals and institutions. The court concluded that just as “governments are not obliged under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to permit the presence of a rebellious army’s battle flag in the pro-veterans parades that they fund and organize,” they are not obliged to display any particular artwork in the art exhibitions that they fund, organize, and promote. View "Jared McGriff, et al. v. City of Miami Beach" on Justia Law

This case stems from a car accident that claimed the lives of four young women. The women’s estates sued the driver who rear-ended their car, for negligence. And the estates sued the driver’s employer, Discount Rock & Sand, Inc., for negligently entrusting the company’s truck to the driver and for vicarious liability for Blanco’s negligent driving. The district court ordered the dismissal of the claim against the driver. The remaining claims against Discount Rock went to trial, and the jury found the company liable and awarded nearly $12 million in damages to the estates. Discount Rock appealed the judgment.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that although the stipulation did not comply with rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the district court’s order dismissing the claim against the driver satisfied rule 41(a)(2)—which allows a district court to dismiss an action by court order at a plaintiff’s request. And on the merits, the court concluded that: (1) Discount Rock was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the negligent entrustment claim; (2) any error in instructing the jury on the rear-end-collision presumption was harmless; and (3) there was no reversible error in publishing the demonstrative aid. The court explained that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Discount Rock negligently entrusted the driver with the modified truck. And even though the district court erred in instructing the jury on Florida’s rebuttable presumption that a rear-ending driver was negligent, that error wasn’t “to the prejudice of” Discount Rock because Discount Rock failed to produce evidence rebutting the presumption. View "Ricardo Sanchez, et al. v. Discount Rock & Sand, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s CPA failed to file Plaintiff’s tax returns for three consecutive years: 2014 through 2016. In 2019, the IRS assessed Plaintiff with over seventy thousand dollars in penalties for violating Section 6651(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and barred him from applying his 2014 overpayment to taxes owed for 2015 and 2016. Plaintiff sued, arguing that his failure to file was due to reasonable cause. He also sought a refund of the penalties. The district court granted summary judgment for the government, concluding that United States v. Boyle foreclosed Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appealed.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that if Plaintiff’s CPA had failed to file paper tax returns, there would be no question that Boyle would have precluded a reasonable cause defense and a refund. However, the court explained that no circuit court has yet applied Boyle to e-filed tax returns. The court decided that Boyle’s bright line rule applies to e-filed returns. Thus, the court concluded that Plaintiff’s reliance on his CPA does not constitute “reasonable cause” under Section 6651(a)(1). View "Wayne Lee v. USA" on Justia Law