Gregory A. Presnell

The case involved the resentencing of defendant Carlos Vazquez, who had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and faced an enhanced advisory guideline range as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 due to prior felony convictions. After an initial below-guideline sentence was vacated on appeal in Vazquez I, the district court later imposed 180 months following the Supreme Court's Kimbrough decision. On further remand, the court concluded that Kimbrough overruled prior Eleventh Circuit precedent in Williams, allowing sentencing courts to vary from the career offender guidelines based on policy disagreements, and that such a variance was permissible here. Accounting for post-sentencing rehabilitation, the court reduced the sentence to 90 months' imprisonment followed by supervised release.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Blackwall Group, LLC, which operates a bar named “Sickboy’s Bad Habit Lounge” in Daytona Beach, and Sick Boy, LLC, a clothing company that sells apparel under the “Sick Boy” trademark. Blackwall sought a declaratory judgment that its business name and logo do not infringe on the trademark, while Sick Boy counterclaimed for infringement and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the alleged infringement. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, finding that Sick Boy failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The decision was based on an analysis of seven factors for likelihood of consumer confusion, concluding that the marks were not likely to confuse customers given differences in goods, services, and customer bases, among other considerations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a bad faith insurance claim brought by Russell and Denise Noonan against Vermont Mutual Insurance Company after a 2005 motorcycle accident in which Mr. Noonan was injured by the company's insured driver. The Noonans contended that the insurer failed to promptly tender its $100,000 policy limits despite clear liability and damages far exceeding the limit, leading to a consent judgment against the driver that was assigned to the plaintiffs. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no bad faith as a matter of law. The insurer had promptly set reserves at the full limit, repeatedly requested medical records and bills from the plaintiffs' counsel, and tendered its limits shortly after finally receiving the records in August 2006; the court concluded that the insurer acted reasonably and that any delay resulted from the lack of documentation provided by the plaintiffs.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns the resentencing of defendant William Irey, who pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of children under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(c) and was originally sentenced by the district court to 17.5 years in prison. The Eleventh Circuit en banc reversed that sentence as substantively unreasonable and directed imposition of the statutory maximum of 30 years. The district court here granted the parties' unopposed motion to continue the resentencing hearing pending the defendant's petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The court reasoned that there was no pressing need to impose the longer sentence while Irey continued serving his original term and that the delay would allow it to address aspects of the appellate ruling before potential Supreme Court review.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned Antonino Lyons, who was convicted by a jury in 2001 of federal cocaine-trafficking and other charges based almost entirely on testimony from incarcerated felons. The court found that prosecutors and the DEA agent committed Brady and Giglio violations by withholding exculpatory interview notes, prior inconsistent statements, and recordings, while also making false representations to the court about the existence and possession of such materials. These disclosures led to Lyons's exoneration on all charges nearly three years after his arrest. Lyons subsequently sought compensation under the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act for the time he spent incarcerated due to the misconduct. The court determined that the government's nondisclosure of material evidence directly undermined the fairness of the trial and supported relief under the statute.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved Intertape's motion for summary judgment on seven counts of ITI's counterclaims, which alleged violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Lanham Act (trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising), Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Consumer Fraud Act, and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The claims arose from Intertape's development and marketing of its competing painter's tape product, Bloc-it, which ITI contended involved false performance comparisons to ITI's FrogTape and misleading statements about blocking paint bleed. The court granted summary judgment to Intertape on all counts, reasoning that ITI presented no evidence of literal falsity in the advertisements, no proof of actual consumer deception, insufficient standing for certain Lanham Act claims, and that some statements constituted non-actionable puffery rather than provably false assertions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Mid-Continent Casualty Company brought this declaratory judgment action to determine whether it had a duty to indemnify its insured, Frank Casserino Construction, Inc., against claims by CED Construction Partners, Ltd. in two underlying state-court lawsuits alleging construction defects that caused water intrusion damage to apartment buildings completed in 1998. CED counterclaimed for the same relief. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment focused on whether any property damage constituted an "occurrence" during the 1998-2002 periods of the commercial general liability policies. The court examined the policy language requiring that property damage occur during the policy period, the latent character of the defects (discernible only after the first measurable rains post-construction but not actually discovered until 2004), and related exclusions for damage to the insured's work or impaired property.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involved a Turkish seaman suing Carnival Corporation for severe spinal injuries allegedly caused by heavy lifting required while working as a headwaiter on two Panamanian-flagged cruise ships. After the case was removed from state court, Carnival filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration based on two seaman's employment contracts that called for arbitration under Panamanian law in a foreign location pursuant to the New York Convention. The parties agreed to apply U.S. law to determine arbitrability, and the court examined the contracts' arbitration clauses, governing law provisions, and potential defenses under the Convention, including whether the agreements prospectively waived U.S. statutory rights or were null and void. The court also addressed subject matter jurisdiction under admiralty and the Convention's implementing statutes while comparing enforcement approaches in the U.S. and Panama.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a § 1983 civil rights action brought by Signature Pharmacy and its principals against Orlando police officer Alex Wright and other law enforcement officials, alleging that a 2005-2007 multi-agency investigation into illegal sales of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone resulted in unconstitutional searches, seizures, arrests, indictments, and related conduct. The specific order addresses Wright's motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and other defenses to claims of unlawful seizure, unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation, and conspiracy in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court focused on the Florida defendants and analyzed the validity of search warrants executed in February 2007, finding that the warrants were overbroad, failed to particularly describe the items to be seized, and authorized general searches of the pharmacy premises in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It concluded that Wright was not entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful seizure claims because no reasonable officer would have believed the warrants were valid, while deferring or addressing other claims separately.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company, as subrogee of a Ford dealership (Heintzelman's), seeking to recover a seven-figure settlement payment, attorneys' fees, and costs from Ford Motor Company after Ford allegedly withdrew its defense in an underlying personal injury suit brought by the Thompsons. The Thompsons' claims against Heintzelman's alleged active negligence in selling a defective vehicle and failing to warn, while claims against Ford focused on vehicle design defects. The court granted summary judgment to Ford, holding that Ford had no contractual duty to defend or indemnify Heintzelman's on the active negligence claims under the parties' agreements. The core reasoning was that the indemnity obligations were limited to pass-through or vicarious liability claims, Michigan law applied and did not treat Ford as an insurer, and the underlying complaint did not trigger Ford's duties.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case was an FLSA collective action brought by Antonio Parrilla and other pre-certification plaintiffs against Allcom Construction for unpaid wages and related damages, after a bench trial established that the named plaintiff was an employee rather than an independent contractor. The parties moved for court approval of a settlement that provided full recovery of lost wages to the existing plaintiffs plus attorney fees, while keeping the terms confidential and providing no recovery or notice to other similarly situated employees who had not yet opted in. The court declined to approve the settlement, reasoning that the plaintiffs had invoked collective action procedures to increase pressure on the defendant but then settled in a manner that abandoned potential opt-in claims, creating due process concerns by potentially time-barring or limiting those employees' remedies given the defendant's financial situation.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Virgilio v. Ryland Group, Inc., homebuyers sued developers and related entities (Terrabrook, Newland, and Westerra) for failing to disclose that their residential development was built on or near a former World War II bombing range, alleging negligence after their claims under Johnson v. Davis were dismissed. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining negligence count, arguing they owed no duty to disclose because they did not build, own, or sell the plaintiffs' home. The court analyzed Florida negligence law and precedents, finding that the duty to disclose material facts affecting property value applies only to sellers in privity with buyers and does not extend to non-selling developers or promoters who merely marketed the subdivision. It rejected the plaintiffs' cited cases as inapplicable because they involved actual sellers or builders, and noted the absence of any physical damage to the home. The court therefore addressed whether summary judgment was warranted on the lack of duty.

propertytorts & liability

This case arose from a slip-and-fall premises liability suit in state court that the parties resolved through a Coblentz agreement, resulting in a $300,000 consent judgment assigned to the plaintiff for enforcement against the defendants' insurer, Scottsdale, under a commercial general liability policy. The federal court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the policy provided coverage for the underlying claims. Applying Florida law, the court examined the insurer's duties to defend and indemnify, the policy's requirement to provide notice of the claim "as soon as practicable," and the effect of the insureds' breach of that notice provision on coverage.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a lawsuit by the personal representative of Ella Church's estate against Walgreen Co. after a pharmacy filled her prescription with a sulfa-based generic drug that caused severe allergic reactions and injuries, despite the pharmacy allegedly knowing of her sulfa allergy. The court denied the motion to dismiss the negligence claim, ruling that under Florida law a pharmacist's duty of due and proper care in filling prescriptions can extend beyond accurate dispensing to include warning or verifying with a physician when the prescription appears unreasonable or dangerous on its face. However, the court dismissed with prejudice the counts for reckless disregard, intentional misconduct, and active fraud, as they failed to state viable claims, and rejected the statute of limitations defense because the discovery rule applied and no facts showed the plaintiff knew or should have known of the claim earlier.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case involved twenty-two Irish plaintiffs who purchased condominiums in a Florida development and later alleged that the sellers failed to disclose material restrictions in an amended declaration limiting units to short-term rentals. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, Florida condominium statutes, fraud, breach of contract, negligence, securities fraud, and other theories. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) based on a forum-selection clause requiring venue in Osceola County, Florida, and under Rule 12(b)(6) for certain counts. The court denied the venue motion, holding the clause permissive and allowing suit in the federal district court encompassing Osceola County. It granted the 12(b)(6) motion in part by dismissing one count with prejudice and others without, while denying dismissal of the remaining counts and allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by McCree after his state conviction for second-degree felony murder and attempted robbery with a mask arising from a 2003 incident in which his co-defendant was shot during an apparent robbery attempt. The district court granted relief, holding that McCree’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request an “independent act” jury instruction. The court reasoned that trial evidence, including McCree’s testimony that he believed the outing involved a drug transaction rather than robbery and the absence of any weapon linked to him, supported giving the instruction, which would have allowed the jury to conclude he was not criminally responsible as a principal for the murder; the omission prejudiced the defense because the jury’s special finding that McCree was unmasked was consistent with that defense theory.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Betty Ann Delker appealing the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits, based on claims of inability to work due to physical injuries, anxiety, depression, and related conditions. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, reversing the Commissioner's final decision and remanding the case for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The core reasoning centered on the ALJ's improper rejection of treating physician opinions regarding the claimant's limitations and the resulting due process violation, as the claimant was prevented from eliciting vocational expert testimony based on those opinions, creating an evidentiary gap.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

This case involves an employee's claim for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against his employer, which became one of many such cases in the Middle District of Florida. The parties negotiated a settlement providing for back wages, liquidated damages, consideration for a general release, and attorneys' fees, but a magistrate judge recommended approving the agreement only after reducing the fees via the lodestar method and reallocating the excess to the plaintiff. The district court examines the scope of judicial oversight needed for FLSA settlements that involve compromises of claims, as opposed to full payment without concession. It determines that court approval is required to ensure the settlement is fair and reasonable, particularly scrutinizing attorneys' fees under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent, while noting that full relief without compromise may not require such review.

labor & employment

This case concerns Scott Mansfield's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his Florida first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for the 1995 killing of Sara Robles. Mansfield contended that the state trial court improperly admitted a two-and-a-half-hour videotape of his stationhouse interrogation, which occurred without Miranda warnings and included inconsistent statements placing him near the crime scene. The district court found a Miranda violation but held that any error was harmless under the Brecht standard because independent evidence—including witness identifications, physical clues like the pager at the scene, and Mansfield's scratches—overwhelmingly established guilt. The petition was therefore denied after the court concluded the state proceedings did not result in a decision contrary to clearly established federal law.

criminal lawprocedure

The case arose from a wrongful death lawsuit filed in Florida state court by Margaret North, individually and as administratrix of her late husband's estate, against several aviation companies following a fatal plane crash in Vermont. Defendant Precision Airmotive, LLC removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds before any defendant had been served, prompting the plaintiff to move for remand on grounds of incomplete diversity, violation of the forum defendant rule, and improper pre-service removal. The court denied the motion to remand, concluding that the plaintiff was deemed a citizen of Vermont under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2) in her representative capacity, that the forum defendant rule did not apply because no forum defendants had been served prior to removal, and that the removal statutes permit an unserved defendant to remove before service. The court therefore retained jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

proceduretorts & liability