Shelby Highsmith

In Arbelaez v. United States, the plaintiff filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her sentence after pleading guilty to conspiring to launder narcotics proceeds, claiming her attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately advise her on plea terms, sentencing exposure, and whether to testify at co-defendants' trials. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion. The court concluded that Arbelaez failed to demonstrate deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington because her testimony was inconsistent and unreliable while her attorney's account was credible, and she could not show prejudice from any alleged errors given the plea agreement terms and the record of her knowing and voluntary plea.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Vernier, defendant Jonathan Vernier pled guilty to credit card fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property after taking possession of a van and jewelry belonging to victim Ran Mesika, who disappeared during a cross-country trip; Vernier had also used Mesika's credit card for cash withdrawals while traveling in the van. The district court granted the government's motion for an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines range of 51-63 months, increasing the offense level to 32 and imposing a sentence of 210-240 months. The court found that the evidence, including Mesika's blood and tissue in the van along with signs of attempted cleanup, established Vernier's responsibility for Mesika's death and intentional infliction of serious injury, circumstances not adequately considered in the applicable theft guidelines under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1. This determination was authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) when aggravating factors take a case outside the heartland of typical offenses. The court concluded that the departure was warranted to reflect the seriousness of the conduct while remaining within the statutory maximums.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a securities fraud class action brought by purchasers of John Alden Financial Corporation stock against the company and several executives. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by setting an artificially low 1994 medical claims reserve to inflate earnings and stock price during the class period. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in full. It reasoned that the defendants had shown a reasonable basis for the reserve when set, that the outside auditor Price Waterhouse was heavily involved in the process, that the reserve became understated due to an unanticipated claims spike, and that the evidence did not support an inference of fraudulent motive.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs who are current or former residents of the James E. Scott Homes public housing project in Miami-Dade County, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the county from relocating residents or demolishing the project under the federal HOPE VI revitalization program for severely distressed public housing. The court denied the motion, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation after de novo review. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, as federal law no longer requires one-for-one replacement of demolished units and the county's minimal use of CDBG funds did not create such an obligation, along with insufficient evidence of irreparable harm.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a purported class action by current tenants of the Scott Homes public housing project in Miami-Dade County against county and federal HUD defendants, challenging the use of a $35 million HOPE VI grant to demolish all 850 existing units and replace them with fewer public housing options, which plaintiffs alleged violated the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, the Housing and Community Development Act, and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970. The County Defendants moved to dismiss four counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for a more definite statement. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after applying the liberal pleading standard from Conley v. Gibson, under which a complaint survives dismissal unless no set of facts could entitle the plaintiffs to relief, and construing the allegations in the plaintiffs' favor.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In this case, Ledford Farms sued Fireman's Fund Insurance after the insurer denied a claim under a federally regulated Multiple Peril Crop Insurance policy for rain damage to a bean crop, on the ground that it had been practical to replant. The policy contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes over factual determinations to be resolved by the American Arbitration Association, and the insurer moved to dismiss or alternatively to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. The court denied the motion to dismiss but granted the motion to compel arbitration and stay further court proceedings. It reasoned that the insurer's determination of whether replanting was practical constituted a factual determination under the policy's explicit definition, which must be arbitrated before any lawsuit could proceed, while retaining jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after arbitration concludes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Florida residents suing a Georgia corporation and its officers, along with other defendants, over a stock purchase agreement and loan related to a now-dissolved Florida company, claiming the Georgia entities were used to evade liabilities through fraudulent asset transfers. The Georgia defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The court granted the motion in full, holding that the complaint did not plead sufficient facts to support jurisdiction over the individual defendants and failed to establish that the Georgia corporation was a successor to the Florida entity in a way that would satisfy either Florida's long-arm statute or constitutional minimum contacts requirements.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether the casino vessel Princesa was accessible to wheelchair-bound plaintiffs under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. After a bench trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing specific barriers including gangways, gaming tables, cashier counters, and restrooms. The court ordered certain modifications, such as installing a rear grab bar in restrooms, while denying others, such as changes to craps tables that would fundamentally alter the game, applying the Supreme Court's analysis from PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin. The reasoning focused on whether removal of barriers was readily achievable and whether proposed accommodations would alter the nature of the vessel's services.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case is a putative class action securities lawsuit against Unicapital Corporation, its officers, and underwriters alleging violations of Securities Act §§ 11 and 12(a)(2) and Exchange Act § 10(b) arising from the company's 1998 IPO roll-up of equipment leasing businesses. Plaintiffs claimed material misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and prospectus concerning the valuation of $470 million in goodwill, the operations and risks of the big-ticket aircraft leasing division, and the impact of federal ANCA noise regulations on the acquired fleet. On motions to dismiss, the court applied the PSLRA's heightened pleading requirements, found the allegations sufficient to plead scienter via severe recklessness, and determined that the prospectus's cautionary language was inadequate to trigger the statutory safe harbor or bespeaks-caution doctrine. The court therefore denied the motions in relevant part, allowing the claims and related controlling-person counts to proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a commercial dispute in which Premix sued SKW after purchasing a chemical additive (F245) used to produce its Poolcote pool coating product, alleging that the additive was defective and caused discoloration in finished pools. Premix asserted claims for breach of implied and express warranty, violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, fraud in the inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted SKW's motion for partial summary judgment on the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, finding them barred by Florida's economic loss rule because they were interwoven with the parties' contractual relationship and sought only economic damages without other property damage, but denied the motion as to the remaining claims. The court also addressed contract formation under UCC § 2-207, determining that SKW's invoice terms did not become part of the agreement. The decision rested on the absence of genuine issues of material fact regarding the applicability of the economic loss rule to the tort claims while allowing the warranty and statutory claims to proceed.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves a disability rights organization suing a cruise line under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for alleged lack of accessibility on cruise ships sailing in American waters. The court addressed whether to join the Department of Justice and/or Department of Transportation as parties due to their failure to promulgate specific ADA regulations for cruise ship alterations and construction. The court decided not to join the agencies and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, reasoning that applicable regulations are not a prerequisite to maintaining a Title III access action and that federal courts have a duty to exercise jurisdiction over properly invoked ADA claims even without such guidance.

civil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned insurers Fireman's Fund and La Meridional seeking recovery from Yareinca for the unexplained loss of a trailer containing cargo (cellular phones and industrial machinery) that had been parked overnight at Yareinca's fenced lot in Hialeah, Florida, after being trucked from Chicago as part of international air shipments arranged by Panalpina. The court conducted a bench trial limited to Yareinca's potential liability and contribution rights under federal common law governing cargo losses incidental to air carriage. It concluded that Yareinca was not liable because the driver provided no bill of lading or documentation of contents, Yareinca never took custody of or inspected the cargo inside the trailer, and therefore Yareinca never became a bailee. The core reasoning was that without voluntary acceptance of custody of the cargo itself, no bailment arose and no duty to explain the loss attached to Yareinca.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves access actions brought by plaintiffs against cruise lines under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits disability discrimination in public accommodations and requires new or altered facilities to be readily accessible. The Eleventh Circuit had previously ruled that Title III applies to cruise ships in U.S. waters, but no specific regulations have been issued for cruise ship construction or alterations, prompting defendants to move to dismiss on ripeness grounds. After lifting a prior stay due to the bankruptcy-related halt in a related case, the court noted the DOJ and DOT's statutory duties to promulgate regulations and their enforcement roles under Title III. The court therefore ordered the parties to file briefs within fifteen days addressing whether the DOJ and/or DOT should be joined as necessary parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, and deferred ruling on the motions to dismiss pending that determination.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involved employment discrimination claims brought by two police officers, Gary Venema and Steven Lublinski, against the City of Hialeah after they resigned due to repeated denials of transfers to specialty assignments. The plaintiffs sought front-pay as an equitable remedy to compensate for lost future earnings. The court denied the front-pay motion, ruling that such an award is unavailable unless the employees were constructively discharged. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, discriminatory denial of a transfer does not create working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign, so the plaintiffs could not establish constructive discharge as a matter of law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a dispute over accidental death benefits under an insurance policy issued by General Electric Capital Assurance Company to the plaintiff's deceased husband. The plaintiff claimed entitlement to benefits after her husband died, alleging that a car accident and subsequent medical malpractice at a hospital were the direct causes of his death from a ruptured brain aneurysm. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the policy required the injury to result directly and independently of all other causes from an accident, which the facts did not support given the aneurysm and multiple alleged causes. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff's theory of combined causes failed to meet the policy's strict causation requirements and that the medical malpractice could not be treated as an independent accident under the circumstances.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a plaintiff who received long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored ERISA plan but had those benefits terminated following a paper review by the insurer. The plaintiff sued Life Insurance Company of North America, asserting claims under ERISA to recover past-due benefits, for equitable estoppel and declaratory relief regarding future benefits, for breach of fiduciary duty, and for bad faith conduct under state law. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, allowing the first claim to be refiled without prejudice against CIGNA as the proper party while dismissing the remaining claims with prejudice on the grounds that they failed to state valid causes of action under ERISA or were preempted by the statute.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involves personal injury claims by three US couples against an Italian cruise operator for severe injuries sustained in a van accident during a shore excursion in Da Nang, Vietnam, while on a Western Pacific cruise. After Florida state courts dismissed identical lawsuits for forum non conveniens, directing that the claims be pursued elsewhere such as in Italy, the plaintiffs refiled the actions in federal district court asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court dismissed the federal cases without prejudice to refiling in an appropriate forum, holding that diversity jurisdiction could not sustain the actions following the state courts' prior dismissals on forum non conveniens grounds. The reasoning centered on principles preventing federal courts from entertaining claims barred by state forum non conveniens rulings in identical matters, while noting plaintiffs' option to seek relief in other jurisdictions.

proceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Ferguson, the government charged a former criminal defense attorney with multiple counts of money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 and conspiracy for depositing over $500,000 in cash payments from a third party into his trust account as legal fees for representing a client in a criminal case. The defendant moved to dismiss the superseding indictment, arguing that the statutory exception for transactions necessary to preserve Sixth Amendment rights to counsel barred prosecution and that the statute was unconstitutionally vague or required application of the rule of lenity. The court denied the motion, finding that the exception in § 1957(f) does not unambiguously cover third-party payments for another person's defense and that the statute's language is not so ambiguous as to warrant dismissal on vagueness or lenity grounds at the pretrial stage. The decision emphasized that factual questions about the transactions and the applicability of the exception would be resolved later, such as at trial or on a motion for acquittal, rather than on a pretrial motion to dismiss.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from University Creek Associates' lawsuit against the Boston defendants alleging breach of contract, anticipatory repudiation, breach of the duty of good faith, and promissory estoppel in connection with a proposed financial transaction. After the court dismissed the contract claims and later granted summary judgment on the remaining promissory estoppel claim, the Boston defendants moved for attorneys' fees and costs as prevailing parties under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, based on an unaccepted $25,000 offer of judgment. The court awarded the requested fees and costs, finding the amounts reasonable, and additionally imposed sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against University and its counsel, jointly and severally, for bad-faith conduct in reasserting contract claims with inconsistent allegations in an amended complaint. The sanctions were limited for counsel to fees incurred after the amended complaint was filed.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Copley alleged that defendant Bax Global terminated him from his managerial position because he was not Hispanic, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. After a jury trial, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff awarding $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. The court denied the defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of discrimination and eligibility for punitive damages. The court also denied the motion for a new trial on liability but conditioned denial of a new trial on damages on the plaintiff's acceptance of a remittitur reducing compensatory damages to $120,308 and punitive damages to $350,000, determining the original awards were excessive under applicable standards.

labor & employmentcivil rights