James Lawrence King

The case involved a dispute over whether performance and payment bonds issued by Hartford Casualty Insurance Company for the City of Marathon's Area 3 wastewater treatment construction project also covered a separate Area 7 project added later through a change order with contractor Intrastate Construction Corp. After Intrastate became insolvent and defaulted, Marathon sought coverage under the bonds for the new project, prompting Hartford to file for declaratory judgment that no such coverage existed. The court granted summary judgment to Hartford, ruling that the Area 7 change order constituted a cardinal change because it involved an entirely separate project at a different location with independent plans and timelines, rather than a modification of the original Area 3 contract. This determination meant the bonds, which were tied specifically to the Area 3 contract, did not extend to the new work, relieving Hartford of any obligation for Area 7.

business & regulatory

This case involved former employees of a South Florida landscaping company who sued their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid wages, raising the threshold issue of whether the business qualified for enterprise coverage to establish federal jurisdiction. The district court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no enterprise coverage because the company's local purchases did not meet the interstate commerce requirement under the now-rejected 'coming to rest' doctrine. On remand from the Eleventh Circuit, which clarified that items like equipment could qualify as 'materials' under the FLSA's handling clause if they moved in interstate commerce and had a significant connection to the business, the court reviewed undisputed facts showing the company used seven GMC trucks manufactured outside Florida to transport workers and equipment to job sites. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on enterprise coverage, holding that the trucks qualified as 'materials' in commerce and satisfied the statutory test, thereby limiting the remaining trial issues to the defendants' alleged FLSA liability.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case was a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action by plaintiff Ernest Heflin against three Miami-Dade police officers alleging excessive force, failure to intervene, and false arrest arising from their response to a domestic argument at his home on May 2, 2005. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. The decision rested on findings that the officers acted within their discretionary authority, had arguable probable cause to arrest Heflin for obstruction after he confronted them and resisted instructions, that any force applied was de minimis, and that one officer arrived only after the arrest was complete.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case is a class action in which checking account holders sued several banks, alleging they were charged unlawful excessive overdraft fees. The defendant banks filed renewed motions to compel arbitration under their deposit agreements, following an earlier denial of such motions and a remand from the Eleventh Circuit after the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. The court denied the renewed motions, holding that the arbitration provisions remained unenforceable as unconscionable under applicable state law even without considering the class-action waivers, due to other one-sided terms such as unequal allocation of risks and remedies that favored the banks. The reasoning focused on the FAA's savings clause allowing invalidation of arbitration agreements on general contract grounds like unconscionability, and found that Concepcion did not preempt those independent state-law bases for non-enforcement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death action brought by Vidhya Balachander on behalf of her husband, who died after nearly drowning while swimming at Great Stirrup Cay, a private island owned and operated by cruise line NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. as a resort stop for passengers of the Norwegian Sky. The plaintiff alleged negligence by NCL for inadequate lifeguard supervision, failure to warn of swimming dangers, and insufficient medical care, and by the ship's doctor for negligent treatment, while also seeking to hold NCL vicariously liable under respondeat superior, apparent agency, and joint venture theories. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, ruling that the claims were governed exclusively by the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), which limits recovery to pecuniary damages and bars non-pecuniary claims; that NCL had no duty to warn of open ocean risks; and that cruise lines cannot be held liable for a ship's doctor's negligence due to lack of control. The court struck the personal jurisdiction defense as waived under Rule 12 and dismissed most counts with prejudice while allowing one negligence count against the doctor to be amended. Core reasoning centered on DOHSA's preemptive effect, established Eleventh Circuit precedent against vicarious liability for ship doctors, and the implausibility of the pleaded facts under Twombly and Iqbal standards.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff convicted of identity theft offenses who filed a FOIA request with the Department of Justice seeking various records related to the prosecutors and offices handling his criminal case. The DOJ denied the request under FOIA exemptions in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), which protect against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy in personnel files and law enforcement records. After the plaintiff challenged the denial and the court ordered in camera review of the documents along with supporting declarations, the district court granted the defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment, affirmed the withholding, and closed the case on the grounds that the records fell within the claimed exemptions.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This multidistrict litigation concerns numerous class actions by bank customers against major financial institutions, alleging that the banks' practice of reordering debit transactions from highest to lowest amount to maximize overdraft fees amounted to a civil RICO violation predicated on mail and wire fraud. The court addressed whether the Third Amended Complaint sufficiently pleaded the fraud elements of the RICO claim. It held that the claim must be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to allege the fraudulent scheme with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), noting that certain internal bank communications cited in briefing were not included in the complaint itself. The court reasoned that the heightened pleading standard for fraud-based RICO predicates could not be relaxed to match ordinary notice pleading and was distinct from prior rulings on state consumer-protection claims.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This multidistrict litigation involves numerous plaintiffs suing various national banks, including JPMorgan Chase, over practices in posting debit transactions to checking accounts in a manner that allegedly maximizes overdraft fees. The defendants moved for reconsideration of a prior ruling rejecting preemption under the National Bank Act and for certification of an interlocutory appeal. The court denied both the reconsideration and the certification request, as well as joinder motions by other banks, holding that the state-law claims targeting the banks' transaction-ordering practices were not preempted by federal banking statutes and did not meet the criteria for immediate appellate review.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Cuban nationals who obtained an $80 million default judgment against Curacao Drydock Company under the Alien Tort Statute and RICO for forced labor. Plaintiffs sought to enforce the judgment by impleading the Island Territory of Curacao and the Government of the Netherlands Antilles in supplementary proceedings. The court addressed whether the foreign governments were immune from such proceedings under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). It determined that the narrower exception in 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a)(2) for attachment and execution of property used in commercial activity applies, rather than the broader jurisdictional exception in § 1605(a)(2), and dismissed the proceedings without prejudice to allow amendment and possible jurisdictional discovery.

procedurefederal power

In United States v. Castillo, the defendant faced a 14-count superseding indictment charging conspiracy to distribute prescription drugs wholesale without a license, mail fraud, money laundering, and related offenses arising from an alleged scheme using shell corporations to buy and resell unlicensed prescription drugs, generating over $18 million in proceeds. The parties submitted a plea agreement in which Castillo would plead guilty to a single count with a stipulated loss amount of $1-2.5 million, the government would dismiss the remaining counts, and both sides would jointly recommend a reduced guidelines range and no departures. After reviewing the factual proffer and evidence presented at the co-defendants' trial, the court rejected the plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5), vacated the guilty plea, and set the case for trial, concluding that the agreement unduly restricted sentencing discretion given the potential 230-year maximum exposure across all counts and that the alleged conduct involved complex, long-term fraud in life-saving medications that posed serious risks to public health and welfare.

criminal lawhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiffs alleging that defendants orchestrated a Ponzi scheme involving the sale of undeveloped Costa Rican land, in which buyers paid refundable deposits and installment payments via an escrow agent but received neither refunds nor title to the properties after the scheme collapsed. Plaintiffs brought claims including breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, civil RICO violations, civil theft, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint without prejudice, finding that the fraud-based claims failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and that other claims lacked sufficient particularity or failed to state a viable cause of action. The core reasoning centered on the complaint's reliance on generalized allegations rather than specific facts detailing each defendant's role, the false statements made, and the circumstances of the fraud.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case was a federal declaratory judgment action in which Scottsdale Insurance sought a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, GFM Operations (a flea market operator), in a state-court lawsuit brought by employee Tonnie Steen, who was shot on the premises during an attempted ATM robbery while performing an off-schedule task for GFM. The court granted Scottsdale's motion for summary judgment and denied the opposing motion. It held that the policy's assault-and-battery exclusion applied to injuries arising from the shooting, even when committed by third parties, thereby eliminating both the duty to defend the underlying suit and any duty to indemnify GFM for resulting losses. The decision rested on the undisputed facts of the incident and the plain language of the exclusion, which also capped any potential coverage at $50,000 under a sub-limit.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a wheelchair-bound plaintiff who sued a restaurant under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging seventeen architectural barriers that denied equal access. After an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, the court found that the defendant had remedied the violations, with the plaintiff conceding that nine had been fixed and evidence showing the remaining claims were either resolved or lacked support. The court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that the claims were moot due to the completed remedial actions or failed to state a viable claim for relief. The decision was based on affidavits, photographs, and testimony demonstrating compliance with ADA Accessibility Guidelines prior to the hearing.

civil rightsprocedure

In this case, a former waiter at Nexxt Café sued his employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Constitution, alleging minimum wage violations and unpaid overtime for 51 hours worked per week. The plaintiff argued that because he received no pay for 11 weekly overtime hours, the employer forfeited the FLSA tip credit and owed him the full minimum wage for all hours worked, in addition to overtime compensation. The court granted the motion to dismiss the minimum wage claim, holding that the statute permits the tip credit if the employer informs the employee of the reduced wage and allows retention of tips, without any additional requirement to pay the reduced wage for every hour. The overtime claim was allowed to proceed because the complaint sufficiently alleged that the plaintiff received no compensation for overtime hours. The court dismissed the minimum wage portion of the complaint while ordering the defendant to answer the remaining count.

labor & employment

This case is a shareholder derivative action in which a shareholder and director of El Rey de los Habanos, Inc., a cigar manufacturer, sued the company's officers and directors and a competing corporation for allegedly transferring trademarks and usurping business opportunities, asserting claims including breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and ultra vires acts. The court addressed the plaintiff's motion to strike all of the defendants' affirmative defenses on grounds that they were legally insufficient. Applying standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and Rule 8, the court granted the motion in part by striking several defenses (such as estoppel, waiver, and breach of the duty of good faith) as insufficient or inapplicable, denied the motion as to others (such as the business judgment rule and unclean hands) that properly qualified as affirmative defenses, and directed that numerous remaining defenses be treated instead as specific denials of the plaintiff's prima facie case.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved two foreign passengers on a Royal Caribbean cruise who purchased tickets for a promoted shore excursion in Nassau, during which they were robbed at gunpoint by third parties on the property of an independent tour operator. They sued the cruise line alleging negligence in failing to select, investigate, audit, or supervise safer excursions, as well as claims for misleading advertising, negligent misrepresentation, agency theories, breach of contract, and emotional distress, based on the cruise line's knowledge of crime risks to tourists in Nassau. The court consolidated the similar cases for pretrial proceedings and granted the cruise line's motions to dismiss the complaints without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the cruise line owed no heightened duties to protect passengers from criminal acts of independent contractors or third parties ashore, that many alleged duties were not recognized under applicable law, and that certain promotional statements constituted non-actionable puffery or failed to meet pleading standards for misrepresentation.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved four defendants indicted under the Maritime Drug Enforcement Act (MDLEA) for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute cocaine aboard a vessel in the territorial waters of Panama. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the MDLEA was unconstitutional as applied because Congress lacked authority under the Constitution's High Seas Clause to criminalize conduct not occurring on the high seas, and that the statute could not be sustained under the Offenses Against the Law of Nations Clause. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denied the motion. The court reasoned that the MDLEA is constitutional as applied because it is grounded in Congress's power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, that section 70505 of the statute does not divest the MDLEA of this constitutional basis, and that the defendants lacked standing to challenge compliance with international law.

criminal lawfederal power

The case involved a dispute between vessel owner Kaloe Shipping and marine repair company Goltens over engine repairs performed under written contracts in 2005-2006. After the vessel suffered repeated engine failures following Goltens' work, leading to arrests of the vessel in foreign ports for unpaid invoices, Kaloe sued for breach of contract, negligence, and wrongful arrest. The court granted partial summary judgment, awarding judgment to Kaloe on the breach of contract claim based on undisputed facts showing Goltens' failure to properly complete repairs such as drilling oil drainage holes, while granting judgment to Goltens on the negligence and wrongful arrest claims due to insufficient evidence and the contractual nature of the dispute.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Ross, the defendant faced sentencing for a drug offense involving 13.2 grams of crack cocaine committed between September 2009 and January 2010, along with a related firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Under the law in effect at the time of the offense, the crack quantity triggered a five-year mandatory minimum, but the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, effective November 2010, raised the threshold to 28 grams and was not made retroactive. The court decided to apply the new Act's reduced mandatory minimum provisions, resulting in a sentence of 30 months imprisonment for the drug count followed by a consecutive 60 months for the firearm count. The core reasoning relied on the parsimony requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), congressional recognition of sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine offenses, a letter from the Act's sponsors urging application to pending cases, and the need for consistency with the amended guidelines.

criminal law

The case involved a homeowner who purchased propane heaters from Home Depot and sued the manufacturers for fire damage to her home, alleging negligent failure to warn and strict product liability on the grounds that the heaters lacked adequate bilingual (English and Spanish) warnings against indoor use. The plaintiff, who spoke and read little English, claimed she relied on packaging graphics suggesting safe indoor use and did not understand the English warnings or instructions. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Florida law imposed no duty to provide Spanish warnings and that any such warnings on the propane tanks would have been disregarded. The court granted the motion, holding that no legal duty existed under Florida law to include bilingual warnings on the heaters and that the absence of such warnings could not support liability; it distinguished contrary precedent and found no genuine issues of material fact.

proceduretorts & liability