Kevin Michael Moore

This case concerned debtor Craig Piazza's appeal from a bankruptcy court order dismissing his Chapter 7 petition. Creditor Nueterra Healthcare Physical Therapy, LLC had moved to dismiss the petition under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a), arguing that it was filed in bad faith to evade a state court judgment. The district court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a debtor's bad faith constitutes "cause" for dismissal under section 707(a) and that the bankruptcy court properly found bad faith based on the totality of the circumstances, including the timing of the filing to avoid document production, ongoing transfers to the debtor's spouse, and maintenance of luxury expenses despite the judgment. The court reviewed the bankruptcy court's factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, noting that the record supported the bad faith determination without any single factor being dispositive.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case arose from the drowning of a boater whose vessel was pulled into a water control structure on Lake Istokpoga after the Army Corps of Engineers and contractors left gates open during high water levels, creating strong currents, and failed to repair a disconnected boat barrier. The decedent's estate sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence in the operation and maintenance of the structure. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Flood Control Act immunized the United States because the released water constituted flood waters discharged for flood-control purposes.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involved a Peruvian seafarer suing Carnival Cruise Lines in Florida state court for workplace injuries on Panamanian-flagged vessels, bringing claims under the Jones Act for negligence, unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and failure to treat. The employment agreement contained an arbitration clause requiring ICC arbitration and a choice-of-law provision applying Panamanian law, prompting Carnival to remove the case and move to compel arbitration under the New York Convention while the plaintiff sought remand and challenged the clause's enforceability. The court determined it had authority to assess the arbitration provision's validity because the challenge targeted that clause rather than the entire contract, and it granted the motion to compel arbitration in part after accepting Carnival's stipulation to apply U.S. law if the foreign choice-of-law term would otherwise render the agreement unenforceable.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

Joan Lyons sued Miami-Dade County alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA, FCRA, and Title VII after she was injured on the job in 2005, took medical leave, requested transfers, and was terminated in 2008. The dispute centered on whether Lyons failed to cooperate with a fitness-for-duty examination by not providing five years of medical records and signing releases, which the County viewed as insubordination leading to her dismissal; Lyons disputed the facts and claimed the actions were retaliatory. The district court granted the County's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, because there were no genuine issues of material fact and the County's requests for records and termination decision were justified under its policies and not shown to violate the statutes. The court also dismissed one count without prejudice.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Lewis v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, an employee injured in a motor vehicle accident sued to determine whether her employer's auto insurance policy provided uninsured motorist coverage equal to the $2,000,000 bodily injury liability limits or only the statutory minimum. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, ruling that the employer had validly elected the lower statutory UM limits. The core reasoning was that the Florida UM rejection form, signed by the employer's corporate controller, expressly selected coverage lower than bodily injury limits by writing in "statutory," the policy included an amendatory endorsement specifying $20,000 UM coverage, and no material facts contradicted the proper execution of these documents despite later miscommunications by claims handlers.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case was a class action lawsuit brought by current and former Broward County employees against the county, alleging that a $20 biweekly surcharge for declining to participate in a voluntary wellness program—which included a confidential health risk assessment questionnaire and biometric screening—violated the Americans with Disabilities Act's prohibitions on medical examinations and inquiries of employees. The court granted the county's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, dismissing all claims with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the wellness program qualified as a term of a bona fide benefit plan under the ADA's insurance safe harbor provision, as it involved risk classification and underwriting principles consistent with state law, was not a subterfuge to evade the ADA's purposes, and allowed the county to administer such terms without violating the medical inquiry rules.

labor & employmenthealthcarecivil rights

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by General Fidelity Insurance Company against the Northstar Defendants and Katherine Foster to determine whether three commercial general liability policies cover personal injury and property damage claims in an underlying lawsuit alleging harm from defective Chinese drywall installed in Foster's home. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, holding that General Fidelity has no duty to defend or indemnify the Northstar Defendants. The core reasoning was that the policies' Florida Total Pollution Exclusion applies because the alleged damages resulted from the discharge or release of pollutants, specifically excessive sulfur and strontium compounds emitted by the drywall, which caused corrosion, odors, and health issues; the court found these substances qualified as pollutants under the policy language and Florida law.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Allen v. School Board of Broward County, plaintiff Nikki Allen sued on behalf of her minor son R.R.S. under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming that school behavior specialist Courtney Davis used excessive force and was deliberately indifferent when he restrained the student during a May 2008 cafeteria incident at an alternative education center, resulting in a fractured elbow. The court addressed only the remaining claims against Davis after dismissing others against the school board and principal. The district court granted Davis's motion for summary judgment on both counts, holding that the restraint did not constitute a substantive due process violation because it was not conscience-shocking under the totality of circumstances and that qualified immunity shielded Davis since no clearly established constitutional right was violated.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves Centennial Bank, as successor to Marine Bank, seeking to collect on a promissory note and foreclose its mortgage on property in Monroe County, Florida, after the borrowers defaulted on required monthly payments beginning in July 2009. The loan originated in 2004 and was modified and assumed by various defendants, with the Noah Group as the record titleholder and the Irishs holding a subordinate mortgage. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment, determining there was no genuine issue of material fact as the defendants admitted the default and the bank had properly established its rights under the loan documents pursuant to Florida law. It further dismissed the defendants' counterclaim with prejudice, granted default judgments against non-responding defendants, and closed the case.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers improperly expanded its regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over prior converted croplands and lands kept dry by continuous pumping by issuing new interpretive rules without public notice and comment. Plaintiffs, a sugarcane grower and renewable energy company, sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the Corps' Stockton Rules changed the meaning of "normal circumstances" for wetland determinations and applied to conversions to non-agricultural use. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in part, set aside the new rules, and denied the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the rules effected a substantive change from prior guidance letters and the 1987 Wetlands Manual, making them legislative rules that required APA notice-and-comment procedures.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

Keys Wi-Fi, Inc. sought to construct a 145-foot telecommunications monopole in Key West that required both a conditional use permit and a height variance above the area's 40-foot zoning limit. After a hearing where evidence showed the proposal did not satisfy multiple variance criteria, including the requirement to seek only the minimum necessary height, the City's Board of Adjustment denied the variance. Keys Wi-Fi sued alleging violations of the Federal Telecommunications Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and Florida state law. The court denied Keys Wi-Fi's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the City's motion in part, concluding that substantial evidence supported the denial under the Act and that no similarly situated applicants had received different treatment to support an equal protection claim.

business & regulatoryfederal powercivil rights

In Scott v. United States, Tyrone David Scott filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence after being classified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines based in part on a prior Florida conviction for carrying a concealed firearm. The district court granted the motion despite its untimely filing, holding that Begay v. United States and subsequent Eleventh Circuit precedent established that the concealed-firearm offense does not qualify as a crime of violence, that this rule applies retroactively, and that Scott could invoke an actual-innocence exception to overcome the time bar. The court therefore vacated the sentence and ordered resentencing without the career-offender enhancement.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Charles Levern Hudson filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 327-month sentence for cocaine distribution offenses, arguing he was wrongly classified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines due to a prior Florida conviction for felony fleeing and eluding. The district court granted the motion after finding that Hudson's claim, though procedurally defaulted, qualified for review because his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object at sentencing following the Supreme Court's 2008 Begay decision, which held that similar offenses are not crimes of violence. The court determined that Hudson suffered prejudice from the misclassification, which increased his sentence, and that his fleeing and eluding conviction no longer qualified as a predicate offense under the Guidelines' residual clause. The court therefore vacated the sentence without adopting the magistrate judge's alternative actual-innocence analysis.

criminal lawprocedure

The Miccosukee Tribe sued the United States and related agencies, alleging that the Army Corps of Engineers' operation of water control structures in Water Conservation Area 3A caused excessively high water levels on the Tribe's leased Everglades lands, violating the Tribe's equal protection rights. After dismissing other claims, the district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining equal protection claim. The court held that the Tribe had standing and that res judicata did not bar the claim, but found no genuine issue of material fact showing that the Corps acted with discriminatory intent or lacked a rational basis; instead, the water management decisions were driven by flood control, environmental, and operational considerations under the Central and Southern Florida Project. The court noted that any differential treatment resulted from these legitimate governmental purposes rather than animus toward the Tribe.

civil rightsenvironmentfederal power

The case concerns a copyright dispute in which songwriter Rafael Vergara Hermosilla alleges that Coca-Cola infringed his rights by continuing to use a Spanish-language version of the song “Wavin’ Flag” that incorporates his translation of the lyrics and production work, created for 2010 World Cup promotions. Vergara moved for a preliminary injunction to halt further distribution of the track. The court granted the motion in part, holding that Vergara owns a valid copyright in the Spanish translation under applicable Mexican law, that any implied non-exclusive license had been revoked, and that Coca-Cola’s ongoing use therefore infringes; the injunction requires appropriate credit to Vergara in certain media but does not extend outside the United States.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns a class action by the National Franchisee Association seeking a declaratory judgment that Burger King Corporation lacks authority under its standard franchise agreements to unilaterally impose maximum prices on menu items, including the double cheeseburger at $1.00, and that doing so violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted in part the motion to dismiss, ruling that the claim regarding contractual authority is precluded by prior Eleventh Circuit and district court decisions interpreting identical language in Section 5 of the agreements as permitting such price controls. The court further noted that any good-faith claim tied to the 2009 imposition of the $1.00 price is timely under Florida's five-year statute of limitations for contract actions, while rejecting the notion that earlier 2002 actions started the limitations clock for this dispute.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an employer, Certex USA, Inc., suing its former employee, Jose Vidal, for civil theft and misappropriation of trade secrets in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior state court action that had been dismissed for failure to post a $100 bond under Florida Statute § 57.011. The court denied the motion, holding that even assuming the prior dismissal constituted an adjudication on the merits under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b), applying res judicata would result in injustice by preventing the plaintiff from pursuing recovery of over $15,000 plus potential treble damages for the alleged misappropriation. The decision emphasized that res judicata under Florida law is not absolute and should not be applied where it defeats the ends of justice, particularly when the prior dismissal was procedural rather than substantive.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerns the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida's challenge to a 2006 biological opinion and amended incidental take statement issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act, which addressed water management operations by the Army Corps of Engineers in the Everglades affecting three endangered bird species: the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, Everglade snail kite, and wood stork. The tribe alleged that gate closures to protect the sparrow caused abnormally high water levels harming the snail kite and its habitat, and it sought to enforce an Eleventh Circuit mandate from a prior appeal. The court granted in part and denied in part the tribe's motion to enforce the mandate, finding that the amended incidental take statement was not arbitrary or capricious in its reliance on scientific data and trigger mechanisms for water levels but required partial adjustments to align with the administrative record and ESA standards.

environmentfederal powercivil rights

The case involved pro se plaintiff Valentine Andela, a Cameroonian physician-scientist, who sued the University of Miami and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill over his 2006 termination from a post-doctoral research position, alleging race and national origin discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, defamation, and antitrust violations tied to research grants and collaborations on cancer studies. The district court converted the defendants' motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment on res judicata grounds and granted them in part, dismissing the bulk of the claims (including all discrimination and retaliation counts) because a prior state administrative proceeding had already determined that no unlawful discrimination occurred. The court also dismissed the antitrust claims for lack of standing and injury under the Clayton Act, along with various state-law claims for failure to state a viable cause of action, and closed the case.

civil rightslabor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a failed yacht construction agreement between Cat Charter L.L.C., the Ryans, and defendants Schurtenberger and MTI, with plaintiffs alleging breach of contract, FDUTPA violations, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The parties arbitrated the claims after the court stayed the litigation, and a panel issued an award in plaintiffs' favor. The court granted defendants' motion to vacate the award and denied plaintiffs' motion to confirm it, holding that the arbitrators exceeded their powers under the Federal Arbitration Act by failing to issue a reasoned award as the parties had agreed. The court found the award's lack of explanation violated the parties' contract for a reasoned decision rather than a bare result, without remanding the matter.

business & regulatoryprocedure