The case involved Leon County, Florida, and its energy district challenging restrictions imposed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's purchase of mortgages subordinate to Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) liens, arguing that the restrictions were invalid and would harm their local PACE program. The court dismissed the lawsuit. It held that the FHFA took the challenged actions in its role as conservator of the Enterprises, and federal law prohibits courts from restraining or affecting such conservatorship functions under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f). The opinion reasoned that the restrictions fell within the conservator's broad powers to preserve and conserve assets and maintain sound operations, even though FHFA also serves as a regulator.
business & regulatoryfederal powerenvironmentproperty
This case involves a hard-of-hearing inmate in the Florida prison system who alleged denial of access to television and radio services provided to other inmates and sought volume-boosting devices as an accommodation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Florida Department of Corrections moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act after the plaintiff was transferred to a new facility, where he had not completed the full grievance process. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff's prior full exhaustion of the same claim at his previous institution provided sufficient notice to the Department and satisfied the exhaustion requirement. The reasoning emphasized that a transfer does not restart the exhaustion obligation when the underlying issue remains the same and the Secretary of the Department bears ultimate responsibility for grievances, making further exhaustion an unnecessary formality.
This interpleader case arose after Pro-Steel Buildings owed $60,304.37 for construction work that was claimed by the United States (via a tax levy on BMC), BMC, and Big Metal; Pro-Steel deposited the full amount in the court registry and sought recovery of its attorney’s fees and costs. After partial summary judgment and a settlement that allocated most funds to the government and $9,000 to Big Metal, the court addressed Pro-Steel’s claim to recover its fees and costs solely from the remaining $9,000 fund. The court overruled untimely and meritless objections, found that Pro-Steel reasonably incurred $11,863.61 in fees and $487.50 in costs, and awarded the entire $9,000 plus interest to Pro-Steel because controlling circuit precedent limited recovery to funds not subject to the government’s tax lien. The ruling rested on equitable principles allowing a neutral stakeholder to be made whole for fees incurred in good faith, the reasonableness of the claimed amounts, and the fact that the available fund was the only source from which Pro-Steel could recover.
This case concerned whether the State of Florida violated the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act by selling bulk driver’s license records containing personal information to a private company, ShadowSoft, which then made the data available online to subscribers who paid a fee, verified their identity, and swore under penalty of perjury that they would use the information only for one of the 14 purposes permitted by the statute. The plaintiff, a class of Florida drivers, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the state agency responsible for the disclosures, arguing that the bulk sale and online availability did not qualify as disclosure “for use” in the permitted ways. Following a bench trial, the court held that the state’s disclosures complied with the DPPA. The court reasoned that the statute permits disclosure when the information is provided for use in an allowed manner, that the company’s verification steps and perjury requirements sufficiently limited use to the statutory exemptions, and that there was no evidence of actual or likely misuse; this interpretation aligned with the statute’s text and other judicial decisions.
This case is a class action under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act alleging that Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles employees unlawfully disclosed drivers’ personal information in bulk. After both sides filed timely summary-judgment motions that were denied, the defendants filed an untimely second summary-judgment motion based on a new theory drawn from recent Fifth Circuit precedent without first seeking leave. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the second motion. The ruling rests on the untimeliness of the filing and the lack of permission to submit it after the deadline, while expressly preserving the defendants’ ability to present their new theory at trial and scheduling a case-management conference to address further proceedings.
This case involves four individuals seeking to pool funds and purchase radio advertisements opposing a proposed Florida constitutional amendment on the November 2010 ballot. Florida law would classify them as a political committee, triggering requirements to register, appoint a treasurer, disclose contributions, and restrictions barring anonymous contributions, cash over $50, anonymous ads, and spending contributions received in the final five days before the election. The court granted a preliminary injunction solely on the five-day spending restriction, permitting use of such contributions if fully disclosed in advance, while denying relief on the other challenges. The decision rested on the plaintiffs showing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for the narrow disclosure-timed issue under the First Amendment, along with the remaining preliminary-injunction factors.