Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Leandre Layton, on behalf of himself and the similarly-situated members of his conditionally-certified class (collectively, "Drivers"), appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DHL Express, Inc. ("DHL") on his claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). DHL contracted with Sky Land Express, Inc. to manage local parcel deliveries. Petitioner worked on DHL routes for Sky Land. Petitioner filed his collective action for unpaid overtime, naming DHL, Sky Land and Gary Littlefield (owner and president of Sky Land) as his joint employers and defendants to the suit. DHL moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was not the drivers' employer. The district court granted DHL's motion: "DHL did everything it could possibly do to relate to Sky Land only as an "independent contractor[."] The contract with Sky Land allowed DHL to exercise only the minimal supervision necessary to monitor compliance with the contract. The undisputed facts lead to the conclusion that if plaintiffs were employed by anybody, they were employed by Sky Land, the entity that they ostentatiously dismissed as a defendant, for reasons this court can only guess at. DHL was not an employer, much less a joint employer." After a thorough examination of the realities of the economic relationship between Drivers and DHL, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the grounds that DHL was not a joint employer of the Drivers. View "Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose from a foreign shipping contract billing dispute between Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. (CONECEL) and Jet Air Service Equador S.A. (JASE). CONECEL filed an application in the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. 1782 to obtain discovery for use in foreign proceedings in Ecuador. According to CONECEL, the foreign proceedings included both a pending arbitration brought by JASE against CONECEL for nonpayment under the contract, and contemplated civil and private criminal suits CONECEL might bring against two of its former employees who, CONECEL claims, may have violated Ecuador's collusion laws in connection with processing and approving JASE's allegedly inflated invoices. CONECEL's application sought discovery from JASE's United States counterpart, JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc. (JAS USA), which does business in Miami and was involved in the invoicing operations at issue in the dispute. The district court granted the application and authorized CONECEL to issue a subpoena. Thereafter, JASE intervened and moved to quash the subpoena and vacate the order granting the application. The district court denied the motion, as well as a subsequent motion for reconsideration. JASE appealed the denial of both. After thorough review and having had the benefit of oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the orders of the district court. the Court concluded that the panel before which which JASE and CONECEL's dispute was pending acts as a first-instance decisionmaker; it permits the gathering and submission of evidence; it resolves the dispute; it issues a binding order; and its order is subject to judicial review. The discovery statute requires nothing more. The Court also held that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in granting the section 1782 discovery application over JASE's objections that it would be forced to produce proprietary and confidential information. The application was narrowly tailored and primarily requested information concerning JASE's billing of CONECEL, which was undeniably at issue in the current dispute between the parties." Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying JASE's motion for reconsideration. View "In re: Application of Consorcio Ecuatoriano" on Justia Law

Of the parties in this case, one of two competing car dealerships used a software program in order to compete more aggressively with the other one over the internet. The program produced a "multiplicity of mini-websites, a host of hard feelings, and of course, litigation." The mini-websites (or "microsites" would either automatically redirect users who clicked on them to Eastern Shore Toyota, LLC's official websites, or they would display a one-page website advertising Eastern Shore. Eastern Shore was sent numerous cease-and-desist letters for using any microsite address that infringed on another company's trademark. Eastern Shore blamed the person behind the creation of its microsite marketing strategy for its legal troubles with third parties. One such third party, Bob Tyler Toyota, filed suit against Eastern Shore's owner Shawn Esfahani and the "internet marketing expert" who first approached Eastern Shore with the microsite idea, David Vaughn, Jr. Bob Tyler Toyota brought six claims against Eastern Shore, seeking injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, all relating to Eastern Shore's alleged misuse of its trademarks under state and federal law. The district court denied Bob Tyler Toyota's motion for summary judgment and its motion for judgment as a matter of law. The jury found that Eastern Shore violated at least one of Bob Tyler Toyota's six claims. At that time, Bob Tyler Toyota did not object to or even mention any inconsistencies between the jury's findings. A month after the verdict, Bob Tyler Toyota renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law on all of its claims. It also moved for a new trial on its anticybersquatting claim, arguing, among other things, that the jury verdict was inconsistent and that it was not supported by the evidence. The district court denied both motions. Bob Tyler Toyota appealed. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Eleventh Circuit could not say that the district court erred in denying Bob Tyler Toyota's motions or abused its discretion in determining the jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision and jury verdict. View "Pensacola Motor Sales Inc. v. Eastern Shore Toyota" on Justia Law

This case concerned the applicability of a standard "no-action clause" in a trust indenture governing a company's notes. The clause at issue stated that a noteholder could not "pursue any remedy with respect to this Indenture or the Securities" unless the noteholder fell within one of two exceptions. At issue was whether noteholders who did not fall within a stated exception to the clause could nonetheless bring fraudulent transfer claims against the issuer of the securities and its directors and officers. Although the district court found the no-action clause inapplicable to the claims, the court disagreed and held that the language of the no-action clause controlled, barring noteholders from bringing suit.

Holston sued LanLogistics for breach of contract when LanLogistics never gave Holston an opportunity to match Gartlan's offer to purchase LanBox. Holston was a citizen of Florida and LanLogistics was incorporated in Delaware, maintaining its corporate headquarters in Miami, Florida. But by the time Holston filed suit, LanLogistics had dissolved and formally forfeited its authority to conduct business in Florida. At issue on appeal was the citizenship of a dissolved corporation for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and whether summary judgment was appropriately entered where there could have been a genuine issue of material fact. The court held that LanLogistics was only a citizen of Delaware and the court had subject matter jurisdiction where LanLogistics dissolved and formerly withdrew from business before Holston filed suit. The court reversed the district court's supplemental summary judgment order and remanded for a determination regarding the fair market value of each company in the package deal to identify the percentage of the purchase price used to purchase LanBox.

Plaintiffs are personal investment holding corporations owned by two related Panamanian shareholders. Defendants, of who there are two distinct groups, are (1) a related group of banking corporations operating under the umbrella of Banco Santander, which provide banking, investment, and other financial management services; and (2) certain individual officers/employees of Santander. This dispute arose from plaintiff's investment of an undisclosed sum of money with defendants. At issue was whether a district court, having found a valid contract containing an arbitration clause existed, was also required to consider a further challenge to that contract's place within a broader, unexecuted agreement. Having considered those circumstances in light of Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters and other relevant precedent, the court found that the district court properly construed the law regarding arbitrability in dismissing plaintiff's suit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Relators brought a qui tam action against defendant and its subsidiaries, alleging violations of the reverse false claim provision of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(7). Relators subsequently appealed the district court's dismissal, with prejudice, of their third amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court held that relators failed to allege with particularity, as required by Rule 9(b), that defendants knowingly made false statements for the purpose of concealing or avoiding an obligation to pay money to the government. Count I alleged that the 2008 Certification of Compliance was false due to the failure to report or remit the million dollars in identified Overpayments, and that defendants made and used the Certification to conceal and avoid the obligation to remit Overpayments. Count II involved the same obligation to remit Overpayments within thirty days but was based on a separate scheme and separate false records. The court held that relators have sufficiently pled each element of a reverse false claim for the Certification of Compliance and the district court's dismissal of Count I was reversed. The court also held that relators have pled all the remaining elements for a reverse false claim for the Discovery Samples and thus, the district court's dismissal of Count II was reversed.

Petitioner National Labor Relations Board (the Board or NLRB) sought enforcement of its order against Respondent Contemporary Cars, Inc. (Contemporary). In 2008, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (the Union) filed a petition with the Board seeking certification as the representative of Mercedes-Benz service technicians employed at Contemporary. The Board held a hearing, determined the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate under two different theories, and directed that an election occur. Contemporary requested that the Board review the Regional Director’s decision regarding the bargaining unit. Despite only having two members, the Board summarily denied the request. Members of the bargaining unit voted in for representation by the Union, and the Regional Director certified the Union. To preserve its right to challenge the validity of the bargaining-unit determination in a court of appeals, Contemporary refused to bargain. The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board. Contemporary conceded the violation, and in 2009, the two-member Board issued an order finding Contemporary in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Contemporary filed a petition for review of the NLRB’s order with the federal district court. The NLRB cross-petitioned seeking enforcement. The circuit court granted Contemporary's motion to hold the case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in "New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB" (130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010)). In 2010, the NLRB issued an order setting aside its previous two-member decision to "take further action as appropriate." The original two members plus an obligatory third member issued a new order, again affirming the Regional Director's bargaining-unit decision. The NLRB subsequently filed a petition for enforcement of its order with the Eleventh Circuit. Upon review, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Contemporary's due process challenge raised on appeal of the 2010 NLRB order. Furthermore, Contemporary did not meet its burden of demonstrating the Board's determination lacked substantial evidentiary support. Therefore, the Court granted the NLRB's petition.

Davidson Directors and PBGC appealed the district court's order to distribute all of News-Journal assets to Cox, a long-time shareholder of the closely-held News-Journal. The court vacated the order, interpreting Florida's election-to-purchase statute to require that any payment made as a result of a corporation's share repurchase decision complied with the distribution requirements of Fla. Stat. 607.06401, which prohibited the distribution of corporate assets to a shareholder if it would render the corporation insolvent. Because the court considered any payment to Cox a distribution to a shareholder within the meaning of the statute, the district court erred when it ordered the distribution of all of News-Journal's assets to Cox without applying the insolvency test contained in the statute. If on remand, the district court finds a distribution to Cox would violate the statute, News-Journal's other creditors should receive payment before any distribution is made to Cox.

BKR appealed the entry of summary judgment against it in its action for breach of contract against Four Winds, tortious interference with a contractual relationship against Phaunos, deceptive and unfair trade practices and civil conspiracy against FourWinds and Phaunos, and unjust enrichment against Phaunos. The district court held that BKR could not prevail on its contract claim and that all the other claims failed as a result. The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to FourWinds on BKR's contract claim because whether FourWinds pursued an investment opportunity that BKR introduced was a question of fact for a jury. The court also held that the district court's grant of summary judgment to FourWinds on BKR's non-contract theories of relief depended on the district court's erroneous view that BKR's contract claim was precluded as a matter of law. Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment to FourWinds was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.