Lenore Carrero Nesbitt

This case involved a claim by Marco Realini against Contship Containerlines for damage to his yacht during ocean shipment from Italy to Miami under theories of negligence, breach of bailment, and breach of contract of carriage. The action was removed to federal court because the claims arose under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) or the Harter Act as incorporated into the bill of lading. The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on damages, limiting the carrier's liability to $500. The core reasoning was that COGSA applied by virtue of the bill of lading's paramount clause even though the yacht was carried on deck, the shipper had not declared a higher value, and the yacht qualified as a single package subject to COGSA's per-package limitation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Miami-Dade County police sergeant Phillip Gaylord suing the County under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation, claiming he worked an average of 127 hours per week (87 overtime) while supervising the Transit Squad from 1993 to 1995 but was only paid for about 1,800 hours despite alleging 4,000 more. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the County, finding no FLSA violation. The court reasoned that Gaylord failed to record or report the disputed hours in his daily activity reports, payroll records, or overtime slips, that his supervisors lacked knowledge of the extra work (including time spent monitoring a radio at home, which is not compensable), and that budget surpluses existed yet he neither requested compensatory time nor followed procedures, so he did not prove the hours worked or the employer's awareness by a preponderance of the evidence.

labor & employment

In this case, plaintiff Linda Palmer-Scopetta, a former account representative for defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, sued MetLife alleging gender discrimination and sexual harassment under Title VII, the Florida Civil Rights Act, and local law, along with related retaliation and emotional distress claims. MetLife moved to compel arbitration and stay the federal action, citing the plaintiff's execution of a NASD Form U-4 registration that incorporated the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure requiring arbitration of employment disputes. The plaintiff opposed arbitration on grounds including a pending NASD rule change exempting discrimination claims, the effect of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and other limitations, but the court rejected these arguments. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action, holding that the arbitration agreement applied to the claims, the new NASD rule was effective only for claims filed on or after January 1, 1999, and binding precedent permitted enforcement of such agreements for Title VII claims.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case is a copyright infringement action brought by CBS Broadcasting and other network television owners against PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, alleging that PrimeTime's satellite retransmissions of copyrighted network programs violated the plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. The court found that PrimeTime's retransmissions were not permitted by the limited statutory license in the Satellite Home Viewers Act, which allows service only to "unserved households" that cannot receive an over-the-air signal of grade B intensity from a local network affiliate. The principal dispute concerned the proper interpretation and application of the "grade B intensity" standard, with the court relying on signal intensity testing, Longley-Rice propagation maps, geocoding, and cable subscription checks to determine eligibility. Based on these findings, the court concluded that injunctive relief was required to terminate service to ineligible households and enforce compliance with the statutory limits.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved CBS, Fox, and affiliated stations suing satellite provider PrimeTime 24 for copyright infringement, alleging unauthorized retransmission of network programs like '60 Minutes' and 'The Simpsons' to subscribers nationwide in violation of the Satellite Home Viewers Act's limits to 'unserved households.' PrimeTime moved for summary judgment, contending that the networks lacked standing under 17 U.S.C. § 501 because only local affiliates could assert infringement claims in their markets, and that Fox's license agreement further barred its claims. The court denied the motion, holding that the SHVA amendment to § 501(e) expressly treats network stations as legal or beneficial owners entitled to sue, that CBS and Fox held exclusive rights supporting standing, and that the affiliates association and Fox could also pursue claims within statutory limits.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Gary J. Venette's (now Pamela Venette) claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits, alleging onset of disability in 1993 due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and associated symptoms like coughing and fatigue. The Social Security Administration denied the application, with an ALJ finding that the plaintiff retained the capacity for certain sedentary work and could perform past relevant work as a manufacturing supervisor; the Appeals Council affirmed this as the Commissioner's final decision. The district court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, reversed the Commissioner's decision, and denied the defendant's cross-motion. The court determined that the ALJ had failed to apply the required Eleventh Circuit two-prong standard for assessing the claimant's pain testimony or provide reasons for rejecting it, and that the record evidence unequivocally supported disability, permitting reversal without remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

federal powerhealthcare

This case is a copyright infringement action in which CBS, Fox, and affiliated stations sued satellite carrier PrimeTime 24 for retransmitting network television programming without authorization. The district court reviewed de novo a magistrate judge's report and recommendation on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and affirmed in part while reversing in part. The central dispute concerned the Satellite Home Viewers Act's statutory license, which permits satellite delivery only to "unserved households" defined by an inability to receive an over-the-air signal of FCC grade B intensity; the court held this is an objective, measurable standard based on FCC signal-strength criteria rather than subscribers' subjective views of picture quality. The opinion addressed related evidentiary, procedural, and injunctive issues arising from that interpretation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an appeal by Metropolitan Dade County from a bankruptcy court order under 11 U.S.C. § 505(a)(1) that granted a nonprofit debtor in Chapter 11 a charitable-use ad valorem tax exemption for its real and personal property for tax years 1989–1995. The debtor, which owned low-income housing projects, had not filed the applications required by Florida law (Fla. Stat. § 196.011) to claim the exemption, though the county stipulated the properties would otherwise qualify. The district court considered whether § 505 allows a bankruptcy court to disregard the state-law filing deadline as merely procedural or whether the deadline is a substantive condition of entitlement that must be respected under state law. The court held that the timely-application requirement is substantive, that the bankruptcy court lacked authority to waive it, and therefore reversed the bankruptcy court's order granting the exemption.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

This case is a consolidated appeal from a bankruptcy court's rulings in an adversary proceeding arising from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 848 Brickell Ltd., which owned a commercial building financed by a loan from Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. The bankruptcy court had disallowed and subordinated Principal's claims, awarded the estate damages against Principal for abuse of process and tortious interference, and made related rulings on liens, administrative claims, and trustee fees. The district court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding the findings of wrongdoing and subordination of claims, vacating punitive damages awards for remand, reinstating Principal's lien on certain cash accounts and its administrative claim, and remanding the fee award for recalculation. The court based its decision on a review of the record, finding no core factual errors but identifying legal errors in the bankruptcy court's conclusions regarding the lender's secured interests and claims under bankruptcy law.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case is an appeal by a bankruptcy trustee from two orders of the bankruptcy court regarding a debtor's claimed exemptions in a profit-sharing retirement plan and certain personal property asserted to be held as tenancy by the entireties. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's order exempting the profit-sharing plan, holding that the lower court should have examined the plan's actual operation to determine whether it qualified under Internal Revenue Code § 401 rather than relying on a prior IRS determination letter or concluding it lacked jurisdiction to decide the issue. The district court also reversed the order overruling the trustee's objections to the tenancy-by-the-entireties exemption, ruling that the bankruptcy court had improperly assigned the burden of proof because the debtor must first rebut the presumption against entireties ownership of personal property. Both matters were remanded for further proceedings.

propertyprocedure

This case arose from a bankruptcy trustee's lawsuits against Cascade International's directors and its securities law firm, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims based on the directors' and lawyers' failure to detect or prevent the CEO's fraud involving fictitious cosmetic counters and false SEC filings that inflated the company's value. The district court reviewed a magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding summary judgment motions, focusing on whether the in pari delicto doctrine or imputation of the CEO's fraud to the corporation barred the trustee's claims. The court decided that the imputation defense does not apply to preclude the trustee's negligence action, reversing in part prior rulings on that issue while affirming other aspects of the recommendation. The core reasoning was that a bankruptcy trustee represents the interests of innocent creditors, who have priority over shareholders under 11 U.S.C. § 726, rather than the fraudulent insiders, making Florida precedent like Seidman & Seidman v. Gee inapplicable here.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a Chapter 7 debtor's effort to discharge federal income tax liabilities for tax years 1969-70, 1972-76, and 1978 in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court allowed the government to amend its answer at trial to assert a counterclaim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C) and, after hearing evidence, ruled the taxes nondischargeable on the ground that the debtor had willfully attempted to evade or defeat them by transferring assets to his spouse via an antenuptial agreement and engaging in other conduct indicative of fraudulent intent. The district court reviewed the procedural ruling for abuse of discretion and the substantive findings de novo on legal issues and for clear error on facts; it affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court had not abused its discretion in permitting the amendment (especially given the offer of a continuance that the debtor declined) and that the evidence supported a finding of willful evasion beyond mere nonpayment. The court emphasized that the debtor's asset transfers, corporate commingling, and timing relative to the Tax Court decision demonstrated the required fraudulent intent under the statute.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

In this defamation case, plaintiff Gul Jaisinghani sued several media defendants, including Capital Cities/ABC and online services, over a 1992 Kansas City Star article that alleged his fundraising organization retained 90 percent of donations intended for veterans' groups. The suit was filed in Florida federal court under diversity jurisdiction one day before Florida's two-year statute of limitations expired but more than a year after California's one-year limit. Relying on Florida's borrowing statute, which prevents forum shopping by adopting the limitations period of the state with the most significant relationship to the claim, the court applied the Restatement factors and concluded that California had the predominant connections because the plaintiff resided and conducted the relevant activities there. Accordingly, the court granted the defendants' summary judgment motions and dismissed the entire action as time-barred.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned Nicaraguan petitioners who entered the United States illegally in 1990, were ordered deported after their asylum applications were denied by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, and later sought a writ of habeas corpus to block enforcement of a 1996 "bag and baggage" deportation order, partly on the basis of a pending workman's compensation claim. The district court denied the petition without prejudice and closed the case. The court held that habeas corpus relief is unavailable because the petitioners were not in actual custody of the INS, as required under precedent interpreting 8 U.S.C. § 1105a, even though a final deportation order had been issued.

immigrationprocedure

In this consolidated case, resellers of Caterpillar replacement parts sued the manufacturer alleging that its Export Parts Policy, which required end-user identification and raised wholesale prices to fund dealer services, violated federal antitrust law by fixing prices and exercising market power, while also committing fraud and tortious interference that harmed the plaintiffs' businesses. The court granted Caterpillar's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the Sherman Act claims under Sections 1 and 2, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to price-fix or Caterpillar's market power in the worldwide replacement parts market. It denied the plaintiffs' related motions on market definition and power, dismissed certain counts at their request, denied injunctive relief, and allowed the state-law fraud and tortious interference claims to continue by denying Caterpillar's motion on those counts.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Incendy, defendant Rodney B. Hedges faced parallel civil proceedings brought by the SEC alleging violations of federal securities laws through his activities as a securities broker, as well as a related federal criminal prosecution for securities fraud. Hedges moved to stay the civil action until the criminal case concluded, citing his Fifth Amendment rights and other constitutional interests. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the stay, and the district court adopted that recommendation after de novo review. The court held that the Constitution does not require a stay of civil proceedings pending related criminal matters, that Hedges remained free to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege by declining to present evidence, and that no exception applied because invoking the privilege would not automatically result in summary judgment against him.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case was a wrongful death action brought by the plaintiff after a young boy was struck and killed by an Amtrak train at the Interlachen Parkway railroad crossing in Florida, alleging that Amtrak and CSX were negligent in failing to install adequate warning systems and in failing to stop the train in time. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the claims were preempted by federal law under the Federal Railroad Safety Act and related regulations. The core reasoning was that federal standards for warning devices at crossings funded with federal money preempt state tort claims regarding inadequate warnings, while claims based on excessive speed or failure to slow the train are likewise preempted by federal speed regulations; the court also permitted the preemption defense to be raised despite not being pleaded in the answer, finding no prejudice to the plaintiff.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case arose from L & S Bearing Co.'s shipment of auto parts via ABF Freight System from Oklahoma to Miami for onward transport to Venezuela; after L & S tried to recall a duplicate shipment, ABF initially returned it but then mistakenly delivered it to the original consignee Randex, after which the shipment disappeared. L & S sued ABF under the Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 11707) for breach of contract and negligence, seeking the cargo value and shipping costs, while also suing Randex (against whom default judgment was entered). The court granted ABF's motion for summary judgment and denied L & S's cross-motion. It held that L & S's loss claim, filed eleven months after delivery, was untimely under the nine-month limitation period in 49 U.S.C. § 11707(e) and industry practice, and that ABF was not estopped from asserting the deadline because it had accurately reported delivery to Randex and had not misled L & S about the need to file a claim or the shipment's status. The court reasoned that the burden rests on the shipper to ascertain non-delivery and file timely, and a reasonable time for delivery had long passed well before the claim was submitted.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Hialeah Park Race Track and the Florida Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association over consent for simulcasting horse races under the federal Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA). Hialeah sued the Association for allegedly withholding consent in bad faith to harm its business, while the Association counterclaimed that Hialeah violated the IHA by demanding excessive fees. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint but granted dismissal of the counterclaim's count I. The reasoning was that the IHA requires only the horsemen's group's consent for interstate off-track betting and does not regulate the financial terms or negotiation processes of such agreements.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In this case, plaintiffs Childs, USAirparts, and Air-chek sued State Farm in state court over disputed insurance claims exceeding $2 million for property damage and business interruption losses from Hurricane Andrew, after State Farm had advanced $525,483.48. State Farm removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration under the policies' Condition 4 appraisal clause, which requires each party to select an appraiser and submit differences to an umpire, with a decision by any two being binding. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the litigation, reasoning that Florida Statute 682.03(1) requires enforcement of arbitration agreements when no substantial issue exists as to their formation, that appraisal provisions in insurance policies are treated as arbitration clauses, and that the clause was enforceable despite an earlier contrary decision on mutuality of obligation. The court denied dismissal but vacated the scheduling order pending completion of the appraisal process.

business & regulatoryprocedure