Eleventh Circuit The Eleventh Circuit has put out the following decisions since last update:
Davis v. Southern Energy Homes holds that an arbitration agreement can apply to claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (a federal consumer-protection statute); there's nothing in Magnuson-Moss, in other words, that precludes enforcement of an arbitration agreement as to claims arising under that statute. The Court holds that FTC regulations, which declare that such claims can't be subjected to an arbitration agreement, are unreasonable and therefore invalid. There's a high potential of a Supreme Court decision on this issue, in this case or some future case, I think.
Shields. v. Fort James Corp. holds that the holding of Nat. R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as well. In other words, a hostile-environment employment discrimination claim is timely if filed within the applicable limitations period (two years, in Alabama) from any act constituting part of the hostile environment. And, in deciding whether the plaintiffs have a valid claim, the district court is to consider all of the acts making up the hostile environment, not just those that occurred within the limitations period.
Valdivieso v. Atlas Air holds that certain employees were not entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, because of the "air carrier" exemption to the FLSA.
Heimmermann v. First Union reverses the certification of a class, in a case under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The case has to do with Yield Spread Premiums – YSPs – which are alleged to be kickbacks that are unlawful under RESPA. The Court holds that a recent "clarification" by HUD of an earlier Statement of Policy makes these cases unsuitable for class action treatment, because the new "clarification" requires an individualized inquiry into certain things before a YSP is to be held unlawful under RESPA. Interesting (not necessarily to say "correct", though) stuff about retroactivity of agency actions, about deference to agencies, etc.
Mobley v. Head stays an execution, pending the Supreme Court's decision this term in Abdur'Rahman v. Bell, regarding whether a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas case constitutes a "second or successive petition". Technical, though very important, habeas corpus stuff.
Brownlee v. Haley sets aside an Alabama death sentence because the defendant didn't receive effective assistance of counsel, where his lawyers did NO investigation and presented NO evidence in the penalty phase of his trial. In the course of this holding, and of rejecting the defendant's challenges to his conviction itself, there are a wide range of other habeas corpus issues addressed.
US v. Kapelushnik, on the government's appeal, reverses a downward departure. The case is about the theft of rare coins. The Ct of App holds that it has jurisdiction even though the amount of restitution has not been set. The Ct also holds that the downward departure (based on defendants' "voluntary" restitution of some of the coins, which were anonymously taken to the police) was erroneous because there was no evidence that defendants were responsible for the return of those coins.
US v. Murphy holds that, under a recent Sentencing Guidelines amendment regarding "threat of death", a bankrobber's note "I have a gun" is enough to constitute a threat of death giving a higher Guidelines sentence. Query whether Woody Allen's "I have a gub" (from Take the Money and Run) would suffice.
US v. Zheng, reversing a district court's grant of motions for judgment of acquittal, interprets 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1), regarding the harboring and concealment of aliens.
US v. White affirms the District Court's refusal to reduce an old sentence based on Amendment 599 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This description will mean something to those who know and care deeply about Guidelines law.
Davis v. Southern Energy Homes holds that an arbitration agreement can apply to claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (a federal consumer-protection statute); there's nothing in Magnuson-Moss, in other words, that precludes enforcement of an arbitration agreement as to claims arising under that statute. The Court holds that FTC regulations, which declare that such claims can't be subjected to an arbitration agreement, are unreasonable and therefore invalid. There's a high potential of a Supreme Court decision on this issue, in this case or some future case, I think.
Shields. v. Fort James Corp. holds that the holding of Nat. R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as well. In other words, a hostile-environment employment discrimination claim is timely if filed within the applicable limitations period (two years, in Alabama) from any act constituting part of the hostile environment. And, in deciding whether the plaintiffs have a valid claim, the district court is to consider all of the acts making up the hostile environment, not just those that occurred within the limitations period.
Valdivieso v. Atlas Air holds that certain employees were not entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, because of the "air carrier" exemption to the FLSA.
Heimmermann v. First Union reverses the certification of a class, in a case under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The case has to do with Yield Spread Premiums – YSPs – which are alleged to be kickbacks that are unlawful under RESPA. The Court holds that a recent "clarification" by HUD of an earlier Statement of Policy makes these cases unsuitable for class action treatment, because the new "clarification" requires an individualized inquiry into certain things before a YSP is to be held unlawful under RESPA. Interesting (not necessarily to say "correct", though) stuff about retroactivity of agency actions, about deference to agencies, etc.
Mobley v. Head stays an execution, pending the Supreme Court's decision this term in Abdur'Rahman v. Bell, regarding whether a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas case constitutes a "second or successive petition". Technical, though very important, habeas corpus stuff.
Brownlee v. Haley sets aside an Alabama death sentence because the defendant didn't receive effective assistance of counsel, where his lawyers did NO investigation and presented NO evidence in the penalty phase of his trial. In the course of this holding, and of rejecting the defendant's challenges to his conviction itself, there are a wide range of other habeas corpus issues addressed.
US v. Kapelushnik, on the government's appeal, reverses a downward departure. The case is about the theft of rare coins. The Ct of App holds that it has jurisdiction even though the amount of restitution has not been set. The Ct also holds that the downward departure (based on defendants' "voluntary" restitution of some of the coins, which were anonymously taken to the police) was erroneous because there was no evidence that defendants were responsible for the return of those coins.
US v. Murphy holds that, under a recent Sentencing Guidelines amendment regarding "threat of death", a bankrobber's note "I have a gun" is enough to constitute a threat of death giving a higher Guidelines sentence. Query whether Woody Allen's "I have a gub" (from Take the Money and Run) would suffice.
US v. Zheng, reversing a district court's grant of motions for judgment of acquittal, interprets 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1), regarding the harboring and concealment of aliens.
US v. White affirms the District Court's refusal to reduce an old sentence based on Amendment 599 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This description will mean something to those who know and care deeply about Guidelines law.
posted by sam at
4:24 AM
