This case involved plaintiff Donna Butts, an African-American temporary employee at Ameripath's testing laboratory, who alleged that her assignment was terminated in retaliation for complaining about racially charged emails between co-workers. Butts brought claims of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act. After reviewing the record, the magistrate judge recommended granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence that Butts engaged in protected activity or that any such activity caused the termination. The district court conducted a de novo review, overruled Butts's objections, adopted the recommendation, and granted summary judgment to the defendants.
The case involves Victor Tony Jones's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court challenging his 1993 Florida convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and armed robbery, for which he received death sentences. Jones, who was convicted after evidence showed he stabbed an elderly couple at their business during a robbery and was wounded by one victim, raised multiple claims including mental retardation, errors in jury instructions on aggravating factors, rejection of mitigating evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct, many of which had been litigated in state courts and on direct appeal. The district court reviewed the full record under the standards of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, found that the state courts' rulings were neither contrary to clearly established federal law nor based on unreasonable factual determinations, and denied the petition in full.
This case involves a claim by plaintiff Marcio Lira against his former employer, Matthew’s Marine Air Conditioners, Inc., and its officer Richard Pinnell, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for failure to pay overtime wages. The plaintiff sought summary judgment on the issue of whether the company qualifies as an "enterprise" engaged in commerce under the FLSA, making it subject to the Act's overtime provisions, while defendants filed competing motions arguing it is a local intrastate business not covered by the FLSA and that the officer is not personally liable. The court denied all motions, including one for involuntary dismissal, concluding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding enterprise coverage and the officer's joint and several liability.
This case concerns a state court lawsuit that defendants Republic National Distributing Company, L.L.C. and Bill Barnes attempted to remove to federal court under diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. After the court directed an amended notice of removal because the original failed to establish jurisdiction, the defendants' amended filing still did not allege the citizenship of all members of the LLC defendant. The court held that an LLC is a citizen of every state where its members are citizens, unlike a corporation, and that the removal statute must be strictly construed with the burden on the removing party to affirmatively show complete diversity and the amount in controversy. Because the defendants twice failed to meet this burden, the court remanded the case to the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida.
The case involves a breach-of-contract dispute where Fly Brazil Group, Inc. sued the Government of Gabon, Africa, alleging non-payment for consulting and modification services on a Boeing 777 aircraft pursuant to an exclusive mandate agreement. The court addressed the defendant's motion to quash the plaintiff's third attempt to serve process, finding it insufficient under the strict requirements of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court granted the motion to quash but also granted the plaintiff an additional sixty days until March 31, 2010, to effect proper service on the defendant. The reasoning emphasized that service on a foreign sovereign must strictly comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a), and the plaintiff's attempts failed to meet those standards.
This case involved a superseding indictment charging defendants Thomas Raffanello and Bruce Perraud with conspiracy to obstruct an SEC proceeding and destroy records, obstruction of an SEC proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, and destruction of records under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, arising from events after the SEC filed a civil complaint against Stanford Financial Group entities in Texas federal court and a receiver was appointed. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing Count 2 (§ 1505) and the portion of Count 1 alleging conspiracy to violate § 1505, while denying dismissal of the remaining charges. The core reasoning was that the indictment failed to sufficiently allege the elements of a § 1505 violation, specifically that the obstructed matter was a pending proceeding before the SEC as an agency, rather than actions tied to the court-appointed receiver in the separate Texas civil action. The court found the indictment adequate for the § 1519 charge and related conspiracy allegations.