John E. Steele

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.

procedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved Chapter 7 debtors who wrote $513 in checks before filing their petition but whose bank account still held those funds on the filing date; the trustee sought turnover of that amount to the estate after the checks cleared, and the debtors claimed an exemption and argued that the funds were no longer theirs. The bankruptcy court sustained the trustee’s objection, ordered turnover, and denied reconsideration, finding that the account balance at filing constituted estate property. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that 11 U.S.C. § 542(a) requires an entity in possession of estate property to deliver it or its value to the trustee, that this duty applies to debtors as well as third parties, and that the debtors had not properly exempted the funds or shown that the checks reduced the account balance for exemption purposes. The court rejected reliance on contrary Eighth Circuit precedent and emphasized the debtors’ duty under § 521 to surrender non-exempt estate property.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's order dismissing with prejudice an adversary proceeding brought by Michele Pessin against RCMP Enterprises, LLC and Christopher Wartella. The underlying dispute arose from a pre-bankruptcy confidentiality and non-compete agreement between Pessin and her LLCs (including Weeks Landing) and RCMP concerning development of Florida real property, followed by the Chapter 11 filings of those LLCs and alleged post-petition actions by RCMP. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error, then reversed the dismissal order and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the bankruptcy court had improperly dismissed at least some of Pessin's claims. The court directed the bankruptcy court to address any remaining derivative claims of Shell Cove and to take other consistent actions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In DeRosa v. Rambosk, the DeRosa family sued the Collier County Sheriff and two deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law after a traffic stop for flashing high beams, claiming issues including unlawful detention, false arrest, and excessive force during the encounter where one passenger was ordered to stop speaking. The district court ruled on multiple summary judgment motions filed by the defendants, granting them in part as to some counts against certain defendants while denying them in part as to others involving remaining claims. The core reasoning applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards, requiring no genuine issues of material fact for judgment as a matter of law, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and assessing qualified immunity and probable cause based on the facts of the stop and any arrests.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Bergin, defendants moved to suppress evidence seized from a residence after Lee County deputies arrested Jason Bergin on outstanding warrants, secured the premises for several hours, and later executed a search warrant, arguing that at least seven separate Fourth Amendment violations occurred and tainted subsequent federal proceedings and statements. After a de novo review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court adopted the magistrate's credibility determinations and procedural history, then examined the sequence of police entries into the residence under Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness, warrant requirements, consent, plain-view doctrine, and the exclusionary rule. The court addressed each challenged entry chronologically, accepting some findings, supplementing others, and rejecting portions where police conduct lacked independent justification or proper exceptions, while noting the government's agreement not to introduce certain tainted evidence at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs alleging that defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misstatements in connection with real estate investments, including claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Counts I and II) and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Counts III and IV), along with related controlling-person liability claims. Following the Supreme Court's Merck decision, the court vacated its prior analysis of the statute of limitations for the 10b-5 claims and reconsidered the timeliness of all counts. The court dismissed Counts I and II on statute-of-limitations grounds because a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered the alleged untrue statements within the one-year period under 15 U.S.C. § 77m, and it dismissed Counts III and IV because the complaints failed to adequately plead scienter. The ruling applied the Merck standard that the limitations period for 10b-5 claims begins when the plaintiff discovers or a reasonably diligent plaintiff would discover the facts constituting the violation, including scienter, while noting that scienter is not an element of Section 12(a)(2) claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the sentencing of defendant Detrick C. Smith after his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The government sought to enhance his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on prior convictions, including a 2002 Florida felony battery conviction, which would trigger a 15-year mandatory minimum. The court held that Smith did not qualify as an armed career criminal because his felony battery conviction under Florida Statute § 784.041 was not a "violent felony" under the ACCA. Applying the categorical approach from Taylor v. United States and related precedents, the court found that the statute encompasses conduct that does not necessarily involve the use of physical force capable of causing injury, and the modified categorical approach did not change this conclusion based on the available records.

criminal lawguns

This case involves a Florida attorney who sued the Florida Bar and its officials after his application for recertification as an elder law specialist was denied, claiming that the peer review process and its confidentiality requirements violated his constitutional rights. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The core reasoning was that board certification is entirely voluntary and not required to practice law, the plaintiff signed a clear waiver agreeing to confidentiality of peer review materials, and the applicable rules regulating professionalism and ethics in the specialty field are neither vague nor overbroad in violation of the First Amendment or other constitutional protections.

civil rightsfree speechbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a motion to suppress firearms seized from defendant Richard Franklin's residence without a search warrant after he was arrested outside pursuant to a valid warrant for violating conditional release terms. The district court denied the motion to suppress, rejecting the magistrate judge's recommendation. The court found that officers had probable cause based on observations of the firearms in plain view and the defendant's prior statements, along with exigent circumstances that justified the warrantless entry to seize the weapons.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns motions for reconsideration of prior rulings on motions to dismiss in a dispute over real estate purchase agreements, where plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached promises regarding tenants, investment returns, and expenses that were not included in the written contracts. The court reconsidered and held that Florida's parol evidence rule barred claims based on alleged oral agreements that directly contradicted express provisions in the purchase agreements, specifically striking portions of Count VII related to guaranteed tenants and annual returns while allowing the claim regarding out-of-pocket expenses to proceed. The court dismissed Count VIII alleging breach of an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing because it was contradicted by the written agreements. The court left intact its prior denial of dismissal for Count IX under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, finding the remaining allegations sufficient. The decisions rested on application of the inducement exception to the parol evidence rule under Florida law as clarified in cases like Ungerleider v. Gordon.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a habeas corpus petition filed by Craig Riggio challenging the revocation of his community control based on violations of its terms after convictions for child abuse and drug offenses. The petition claimed that the state trial court violated Riggio's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice by denying a request for a continuance to allow him to retain private counsel. The federal district court granted the petition, holding that the trial court's summary denial of the continuance, without inquiring into the circumstances or considering relevant factors, constituted an abuse of discretion that infringed on the right to chosen counsel. As a result, the court vacated the revocation order and directed the state to hold a new revocation hearing within 180 days.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves Serefex Corporation suing Hickman Holdings, LP, Chressian, LLC, The D’Anza Family Trust, and Biltmore Investments for breach of contract, federal securities fraud under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, common law fraud, Florida securities fraud, and violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 475 arising from a business transaction. The court denied the D’Anza Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue transfer, finding specific jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute based on their alleged contacts with Florida related to the claims, but granted dismissal of the fraud and securities counts without prejudice for shotgun pleading deficiencies under Rules 8 and 9(b). It also granted Biltmore’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 475 count with prejudice due to plaintiff’s lack of standing under the Business Brokerage Agreement and allowed Serefex to file a Second Amended Complaint within twenty-one days.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit by Christine Thomas against Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc., alleging negligence and strict liability after she fell from a personal watercraft and suffered internal injuries from the jet thrust while wearing only a bikini and life jacket. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment on specific claims regarding the adequacy of warnings about protective clothing, the placement of those warnings, and any duty to recall or retrofit the product. The court granted summary judgment on the adequacy of the warning language itself, finding it sufficient to inform users of the risks, and on the recall/retrofit claims, as Florida law does not impose such a post-sale duty and no voluntary duty was assumed. However, the court denied summary judgment on the warning placement issue, holding that a genuine factual dispute exists as to whether the label's location prevented the plaintiff from seeing it, which could affect proximate cause. The decision rests on standard summary judgment principles under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff without weighing credibility.

torts & liability

The case involves a Haitian national in ICE custody who sued various defendants, including federal immigration officials, alleging deliberate indifference to her serious medical condition of uterine fibroid tumors causing persistent vaginal bleeding. After being recommended for surgical treatment such as a myomectomy while in state custody, the plaintiff received only diagnostic testing and consultations in federal custody despite further medical recommendations for procedures including uterine artery embolization or hysterectomy. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, determining there was a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because the delay in treatment was medically unjustified and exacerbated her condition, that she would suffer irreparable injury without relief, and that the balance of harms and public interest supported the injunction. It ordered defendants to authorize and schedule an appropriate recommended treatment option to which the plaintiff consents.

immigrationcivil rightshealthcare

The case involved an insurance company suing a rehabilitation center, its doctor, and another individual for allegedly fraudulent PIP insurance claims totaling over $140,000 across fifteen separate incidents, asserting claims including fraud, unjust enrichment, unfair trade practices, negligent supervision, conspiracy, and declaratory relief. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction, arguing the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 because individual claims could not be aggregated under state insurance law. The court denied the motions in part, holding that federal procedural rules permit a single plaintiff to aggregate all claims against a defendant for jurisdictional purposes regardless of factual relation, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1359 did not bar jurisdiction; it dismissed the fraud and conspiracy counts as well as declaratory relief regarding future claims but allowed the remaining counts to proceed.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory