This case involves a Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor appealing a bankruptcy court order that denied plan confirmation because the debtor did not include social security benefits as projected disposable income to be paid to unsecured creditors. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's decision on interlocutory appeal, holding that social security benefits need not be included in the projected disposable income calculation. The court reasoned that the Bankruptcy Code's definition of current monthly income in 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A) expressly excludes benefits received under the Social Security Act, so such income is not part of disposable income under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2) and cannot be a basis for denying confirmation.
This case involves ERISA claims brought by participants in an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) sponsored by Orion Bancorp against the plan's trustees and corporate directors. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty by continuing to invest plan assets in Orion stock despite known risks, failing to provide accurate information to participants, and failing to monitor fiduciaries, resulting in plan losses from 2006 to 2009. The court addressed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), first finding that the plaintiffs had exhausted available administrative remedies as required by Eleventh Circuit precedent. Applying the plausibility standards from Twombly and Iqbal, the court evaluated each count, dismissing claims against the director defendants for insufficient factual allegations of their specific fiduciary roles or actions while allowing certain claims against the trustees to proceed based on the pleaded facts regarding investment decisions and disclosures.
This case involved defendant Samir Nel Cabrera, who was convicted on wire fraud and money laundering charges stemming from a scheme to defraud investors that included both obtaining money through false pretenses and depriving them of the intangible right to honest services. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Skilling v. United States, which narrowed honest services fraud to cases involving bribery or kickbacks, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the convictions and remanded for consideration of whether a retrial would violate the Fifth Amendment. The district court determined that the jury had acquitted Cabrera on the money-fraud aspect of the wire fraud charges, as shown by the verdict form and instructions, and that this acquittal collaterally estopped the government from relitigating the essential element required for the money laundering counts. Accordingly, the court denied the government's request for a new trial on the wire fraud and money laundering charges, finding that retrial would violate Cabrera's Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy.
In United States v. Hill, the defendant faced federal charges for possessing child pornography, and he moved to suppress evidence obtained during a police encounter at his home. The court agreed with the magistrate judge that officers unlawfully entered the enclosed lanai area behind the house, which was protected by the Fourth Amendment as part of the home or its curtilage, without exigent circumstances or public invitation. After taking the defendant into custody under the Baker Act and obtaining consent to retrieve clothing, an officer exceeded the scope of that consent by intentionally triggering a computer out of sleep mode to view child pornography images, which was not a valid plain-view observation. The district judge therefore granted the motion to suppress all evidence, statements, and observations obtained after the initial unlawful entry.
This case involves a contract dispute between plaintiffs Frederick and Judith Feldkamp and defendant Long Bay Partners, LLC, over the refund of a $62,000 or $92,000 deposit paid for a fully refundable resident golf membership at Shadow Wood Country Club as part of a 2005 real estate purchase. The Feldkamps resigned from the club in 2009 and demanded a refund, leading to claims in the Third Amended Complaint for breach of contract and related issues after an earlier dismissal of one count. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court applied the standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, reviewed undisputed facts from the membership application and governing documents, and analyzed contract interpretation principles including the effect of a general reservation of amendment rights on refund terms and the lack of need for new consideration when modifications follow the original agreement.
The case involved Gore Marine Corporation's complaint seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability following an allision on February 7, 2006, in which Donna Skaggs' boat, the MISS JIGGS, struck the CAPTAIN JEROME tugboat and attached dredge pipeline being towed by multiple vessels including those owned by Gore Marine, Triple S Marine, and others, during transport of equipment for a beach restoration project. After a non-jury trial, the court found that the accident occurred at night, the CAPTAIN JEROME displayed proper lights as required by navigation rules, and the allision resulted from Ms. Skaggs' failure to see those lights rather than any deficiency in the lighting configuration, color, or operation by Gore Marine. The court therefore exonerated Gore Marine from liability, denied Skaggs' claim against it, and dismissed the other claims as moot.
