Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Opinions from the Eleventh Circuit

Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18465 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2012) rejected the class action objectors’ arguments that the class did not satisfy the prerequisites to class certification set forth in Rule 23(a), because the class representatives’ claims lacked the required typicality.  While each class member may have a stronger or weaker claim, the court concluded that this alone did not make class representatives’ claims atypical of the class as a whole. Class members' claims need not be identical to satisfy the typicality requirement; rather, there need only exist “a sufficient nexus . . . between the legal claims of the named class representatives and those of individual class members to warrant class certification.” Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2000). This nexus exists “if the claims or defenses of the class and the class representative arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory.” Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 1984). The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the claims of the class representatives and class members are typical and warrant class certification.


Contour Spa at the Hard Rock, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18464 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2012) affirmed the dismissal of a breach of lease agreement suit based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the Tribe’s sovereign immunity.  In the lease the Tribe expressly waived its sovereign immunity concerning any lawsuits Contour might bring based on the Tribe's default or breach of the lease agreement, but the entire lease’s validity was explicitly conditioned upon approval by the Secretary of the Interior, and such approval was never obtained.


Vasquez v. YII Shipping Company, Ltd., --- F.3d --- (11th Cir. August 30, 2012) vacated an order dismissing a seaman’s complaint alleging violations of the Jones Act, and federal maritime law of unseaworthiness.  Vasquez originally filed his suit in Florida court, which dismissed his claims based on Florida’s doctrine of forum non conveniens, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. Vasquez then brought the same claims in federal district court, arguing that federal maritime law applied to his case and that venue was not improper under federal forum non conveniens principles. Although the Florida court never decided whether federal maritime law was applicable to Vasquez’s case, the district court ruled that under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, Vasquez was precluded from litigating facts relevant to his federal maritime claims. The district court then dismissed Vasquez’s complaint on the grounds of federal forum non conveniens and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine based on its application of collateral estoppel and res judicata. The appellate court found that collateral estoppel applies only when identical issues are involved and that was not the case here. Likewise, res judicata applies only to a final judgment on the merits and, therefore, was not applicable here where there has been no merits determination.  Finally, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was a narrow doctrine that only applies to an attempt to appeal a state court judgment. The doctrine holds that federal courts below the Supreme Court must not become a court of appeals for state court decisions. The state court appellant has to find a state court remedy, or obtain relief from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is “confined to cases” that were “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobile Corp. v Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).  In this case, Vasquez’s lawsuit does not seek appellate review of the state court’s decision applying Florida’s forum non conveniens rules to his claims. Instead, Vasquez seeks review of the district court’s order that federal maritime law does not apply to his case, an issue not resolved by the state court.

No comments:

Post a Comment