Articles Posted in US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

by
Plaintiffs filed suit under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 28 U.S.C. 1350 note, against defendant, a Lieutenant in the Chilean Army, who oversaw and participated in the detention, torture, and murder of Víctor Jara in the days following General Augusto Pinochet's coup in Chile. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims, holding that a federal court may not exercise jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute when all of defendant’s relevant conduct took place outside the United States. View "Jara v. Barrientos Nunez" on Justia Law

by
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's claim arose out of an agreement she entered into with a non-party FBI confidential informant. Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), alleging that the United States caused her losses under a lease arrangement with the informant through negligence, deliberate indifference, and conversion. The court held that none of plaintiff's claims stated a cause of action under Georgia law and agreed that the district court correctly dismissed all three counts of the second amendment. In this case, because plaintiff's negligence claim would not support a cause of action against a private person under Georgia law, it likewise does not support an FTCA claim against the United States; plaintiff alleged no authority supporting the existence of a Georgia cause of action for deliberate indifference; and, because plaintiff did not allege that the United States ever had actual possession of the vehicles, the district court correctly dismissed the conversion claim. View "Smith v. United States" on Justia Law

by
BSC appealed from various orders and a final judgment in favor of plaintiff, who alleged substantial injuries caused by the Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit that was manufactured and sold by BSC. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for plaintiff, holding that the district court acted well within its discretion in consolidating four lawsuits and BSC could not establish that it was prejudiced by the consolidation of the suits; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded BSC's 510(k) review process evidence; the district court did not err by declining to overturn the jury's verdict where plaintiff provided sufficient evidence in her favor, so her claims were properly reserved for the jury; the district court did not err by denying judgment as a matter of law to BSC on plaintiff's failure to warn claims; and the district court did not err by denying judgment as a matter of law to BSC on its argument that plaintiff's claims were time barred. View "Eghnayem v. Boston Scientific Corp." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff and his wife filed suit against TVA, alleging negligence involving a tragic accident on the Tennessee River where he was seriously injured when his boat passed through an area of the river that the TVA was attempting to raise a downed power line partially submerged in the river. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the discretionary function exception applied to this case where plaintiff failed to point to a specific regulation that TVA allegedly transgressed and the conduct at issue involved public policy considerations. In this case, the challenged actions and decisions could require TVA to consider, among other things, its allocation of resources (such as personnel and time), public safety, cost concerns, benefits, and environmental impact. View "Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs are current and former federal law enforcement employees and their spouses who were deceived into investing in a Ponzi scheme presenting as the Federal Employee Benefits Group (FEBG). Plaintiffs filed suit against the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), for negligent conduct and aiding and abetting the scheme. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the Government's motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and held that the misrepresentation exception applied to bar plaintiffs' claim. In this case, plaintiffs' claims arose out of Kenneth Wayne McLeod's misrepresentations about his bond fund. McLeod founded and ran the FEBG Bond Fund. View "Alvarez v. United States" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants for harms allegedly suffered by plaintiffs when plaintiffs were enrolled in a clinical study while being treated for health issues accompanying their premature births. The Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs' negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and products liability claims were not viable under Alabama law, and the district court correctly dismissed them. The Eleventh Circuit certified to the Alabama Supreme Court: Must a patient whose particular medical treatment is dictated by the parameters of a clinical study, and who has not received adequate warnings of the risks of that particular protocol, prove that an injury actually resulted from the medical treatment in order to succeed on a claim that his consent to the procedure was not informed? View "Lewis v. Moore" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff filed suit against S&N for negligence, product liability, breach of contract, and misrepresentation. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from his decision to get S&N's metal-on-metal hip replacement system and the injuries he says it caused him. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the negligence claim to the extent it relies on an improper training or failure to warn theory of liability; affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim; and reversed the dismissal of the negligence claim and strict product liability claims premised on manufacturing defect, as well as his misrepresentation claim. The court explained that these surviving claims were cognizable Florida common law causes of action and were not preempted by federal law. View "Mink v. Smith & Nephew, Inc." on Justia Law