William J. Zloch

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

criminal law

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

procedurefederal power

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves two restaurant operators, Creative Hospitality Ventures and E.T. Limited, seeking a declaratory judgment that their insurers, United States Liability Insurance Company and Essex Insurance Company, must defend and indemnify them in underlying lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) for printing credit card expiration dates on customer receipts. The plaintiffs had been sued in federal and state court under FACTA's provisions for willful and negligent noncompliance, which allow for statutory damages. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant USLI's motion to dismiss, finding no coverage under the policy's definition of 'personal and advertising injury' because the FACTA claims did not involve publication of material that violated a person's right of privacy as interpreted in the policy language. The ruling on Essex's motion was reserved for later decision. The core reasoning centered on policy interpretation under Florida law, concluding that the alleged statutory violations did not fall within the covered offenses.

business & regulatory

In this diversity case, John Daly Enterprises, LLC and professional golfer John Daly sued Hippo Golf Co. for trademark infringement under federal law, unauthorized commercial use of Daly's name and likeness under Florida statute, breach of endorsement and licensing contracts, and alter ego liability to enforce a prior judgment against the defendant's parent company. The contracts had ended by 2003-2004, after which the defendant continued selling merchandise bearing Daly's marks and likeness without permission and failed to pay all royalties. The court granted partial summary judgment establishing liability on the trademark, statutory, and contract claims based on undisputed facts showing post-contract use and nonpayment, but denied summary judgment on damages for those claims due to factual disputes and denied it entirely on the alter ego claim for lack of evidence that corporate separateness was disregarded to harm plaintiffs.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this case, American Express sought court enforcement of an arbitrator-issued summons for documents from non-party Patricia Lurie, Kennedy's treating mental health professional, in a pending arbitration between Kennedy and American Express under 9 U.S.C. § 7. The court denied the petition and dismissed the action, ruling that FAA Section 7 does not authorize arbitrators to compel pre-hearing document discovery from non-parties. The core reasoning examined the statute's plain language, which permits summoning a person to appear before the arbitrator as a witness and bring materials deemed material as evidence, but does not extend to separate pre-hearing production; the court contrasted this with amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and rejected broader interpretations from other courts as non-binding.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves multiple employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuits brought by plaintiffs represented by the same attorney against their former employers, including Toys "R" Us, SunTrust Bank, and JP Morgan. After adverse rulings including summary judgments and dismissals, the plaintiffs filed motions for recusal of the district judge and for reconsideration, alleging bias based on the judge's Catholic faith, his law clerks' education, his Federalist Society affiliation, and claims that he manipulated the random case assignment system. The court conducted a de novo review and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, overruling the plaintiffs' objections. It denied the motions, finding the recusal allegations baseless as previously rejected by the Eleventh Circuit and concluding that the filings were made in bad faith based on objectively determinable factors such as repeated unfounded claims despite prior warnings.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Plaintiff Green Bullion Financial Services, doing business as Cash4Gold, seeking a preliminary injunction against Defendant Money4Gold (Dollars4Gold) for using affiliate advertising networks to place online banners, logos, and search ads that copied or referenced Plaintiff's brand, Super Bowl commercial, and marketing materials to divert customers. The court held an evidentiary hearing and found that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden under the applicable tests for trademark or Lanham Act claims. Although the court noted a basic sense of unfairness in Defendant's competitive tactics, it applied the required legal standards for intellectual property protection and determined that the evidence did not support granting preliminary injunctive relief. The motion was therefore denied, with the case to proceed on the merits if Plaintiff chooses.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a Brazilian plaintiff's claim against a New York-based defendant for tortious interference with a contract concerning rights to a patented expansion-joint system and related trademark, stemming from alleged sales in the Asia/Pacific region after an asset purchase agreement. The court addressed the defendant's motion to determine the applicable substantive law in this diversity action. It decided to apply New York law, finding that New York had the most significant relationship to the dispute under the relevant choice-of-law analysis. The core reasoning centered on the location of the conduct causing the injury (primarily in New York, where operations, orders, and shipments originated), the parties' prior relationship being centered in New York through license agreement negotiations, and other factors like the plaintiff's injury being more diffuse.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a plaintiff's attempt to rescind the purchase of a multi-million-dollar yacht from defendants based on alleged fraudulent representations and omissions. The court addressed defendants' motions for summary judgment but focused on procedural compliance rather than the merits. It struck the plaintiff's responses because they failed to follow Local Rule 7.5, which requires opposing statements of material facts to correspond numerically with the movant's assertions, clearly controvert them, and place any additional facts at the end. The court reasoned that the rule exists to reduce the burden on judicial review of summary judgment motions and gave the plaintiff one final opportunity to refile compliant responses, warning that further noncompliance would result in the defendants' facts being deemed admitted.

procedure

The case involved plaintiff Richard Boehm's challenge to the Social Security Administration's denial of his applications for disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits, which he sought based on conditions including diabetes, Addison’s disease, hypothyroidism, pulmonary embolism, and related issues. The Administrative Law Judge found Boehm not disabled, and the Appeals Council upheld that determination. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting Boehm's motion for summary judgment, denying the Commissioner's motion, reversing the agency's decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and remanding for further proceedings. The remand requires the agency to assess whether Boehm's arthritis, arthralgias, and back and neck pain were severe impairments at step two, the proper weight to give his treating physician's opinion, and whether a vocational expert's testimony shows jobs exist in the national economy that he can perform.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

This case involved homeowners who sued their insurer after Hurricane Wilma damaged their property in 2005, alleging disagreement over the value of covered repairs and seeking full policy benefits. The insurer moved to dismiss or stay the action pending an appraisal process under the policy, but the court denied the motion, finding that the insurer had waived its right to appraisal by failing to provide required information to claimants as mandated by Florida Statute § 627.7015(2). The court later denied the insurer's motion for reconsideration on the same issue, as well as the homeowners' motions for summary judgment and attorney's fees, primarily due to noncompliance with local procedural rules governing motion practice and evidence. The core reasoning centered on the unrefuted evidence of the insurer's statutory violation establishing waiver, combined with the parties' failures to follow federal and local court procedures for various filings.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff who purchased a life insurance policy on his business partner and filed suit for declaratory judgment and breach of contract after the partner died of cancer within two years, seeking immediate payment of benefits. The defendant insurer had not yet completed its review under the policy's two-year contestability period, which allows investigation of potential misrepresentations, and anticipated a decision within the standard three-to-six-month timeframe. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that the claims were not ripe for adjudication under Article III and prudential ripeness standards because no coverage determination had been made, the issues lacked sufficient concreteness, and judicial intervention would interfere with the insurer's contractual rights. The court reasoned that any hardship from delay was not material enough to create a justiciable controversy and that further factual development, including the insurer's final decision, was needed for effective review.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The plaintiff, a former laborer for a residential remodeling company, sued his employer and its owners under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida law to recover unpaid overtime wages. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was not covered by the FLSA. After reviewing the evidence, the court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue of material fact on coverage. It held that enterprise coverage did not apply because the company’s annual gross revenue was below $500,000 and it was not a hospital or similar institution, while individual coverage also failed because the plaintiff’s work did not involve engagement in interstate commerce or the production of goods for commerce.

labor & employment

This case is an employment discrimination and retaliation action in which plaintiff Sonya Gossard, a former Account Executive at JP Morgan Chase & Co., alleged that her supervisor treated her less favorably after the birth of her child and retaliated against her complaints by reducing support and ultimately terminating her. Defendant moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion after deeming defendant's statement of undisputed facts admitted due to plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 7.5 requirements for opposing statements of material facts. The court found no adverse employment actions sufficient to support a discrimination claim and no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on causation or pretext for the retaliation claim, as the termination was based on documented performance issues. The ruling applied established Eleventh Circuit standards for summary judgment in such cases.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Vallecillo v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., former employees of a South Florida residential and commercial remodeling company sued the firm and its principals under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the company was not covered by the FLSA's overtime provisions. It found no genuine issue of material fact on enterprise coverage because all goods and materials were purchased from local Florida retailers after coming to rest in the state, with no direct out-of-state orders or interstate work by employees, and no facts supported individual coverage for the plaintiffs. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints and for sanctions, as well as the defendants' motion for reconsideration on the gross-revenue issue.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved the U.S. government suing several tax return preparers and their businesses in the Miami area for improper deductions, exclusions, and treatment of income on returns prepared for tax years 2003 through 2006, seeking a permanent injunction barring them from preparing tax returns under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7407, 7408, and 7402. After a non-jury trial, the court found that the defendants had knowingly taken unreasonable positions, aided in material misstatements resulting in understated tax liability, and misrepresented their ability to practice before the IRS. The court determined that injunctive relief was warranted but declined to impose a total ban on tax preparation, instead enjoining only the specific prohibited conduct, because the defendants had implemented corrective procedures, the IRS had delayed enforcement, and the public interest favored continued availability of tax services. The ruling was based on the error rates in audited returns, evidence of the defendants' remedial efforts, and equitable balancing of hardships.

taxesbusiness & regulatory