Doug Burchfield, a General Mills employee, was severely injured after a loaded railcar unexpectedly rolled down a railway sidetrack leading from a CSX line to a General Mills plant. Burchfield sued CSX and the company that owned the railcar, alleging that CSX negligently delivered the car to General Mills with a faulty handbrake, which caused…
Category: Civil Procedure
“And All Means All”: Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal Requires All Parties’ Signatures
To be effective, a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 must be signed by all parties who have appeared in an action, even if there are multiple defendants and fewer than all of them are being dismissed. City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hospitality Holdings, L.P., 2023 WL 5944193 (11th Cir. Sept….
Rule 41(a) May Only Dismiss an Entire Action, Not a Single Count
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) outlines the procedure for voluntary dismissals of “an action” at the parties’ request. The Eleventh Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Britt Grant, has again emphasized that “[a]ny attempt to use this rule to dismiss a single claim, or anything less than the entire action will be invalid.”…
Plaintiff Has Standing to Assert Agency-Based TILA Claim Against Home-Improvement Financing Company
A plaintiff had Article III standing to bring a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim against a home improvement financer, based on a theory that a heating and air conditioning contractor company acted as agent for the financer. Walters v. Fast AC, Ltd. Liab. Co., 60 F.4th 642 (11th Cir. 2023) Gary Walters, a 70-year-old…
CFPB’s “Egregious” Conduct Provides Roadmap for How Not to Defend a 30(b)(6) Deposition
The deposition of a party’s corporate representative under Rule 30(b)(6) often presents a tension between inquiry into the party’s knowledge of facts—which is fair game—and inquiry into the party’s legal positions—which can delve into protected attorney work-product. Lawyers representing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) in a case about an allegedly fraudulent debt-collection scheme provided…
Novel Data-Breach Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss Employee Class Action
The Eleventh Circuit revived a putative data-breach class action in Ramirez v. Paradies Shops, LLC, No. 22-12853, _ F.4th _ (11th Cir. June 5, 2023), which a district court had dismissed for failure to state a claim under Georgia law. The opinion reflects a trend of expanding privacy protection and has already been cited in…
Prior-Precedent Rule Dictates Result in Condemnation Action
In Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 18.27 Acres of Land, 59 F.4th 1158 (11th Cir. 2023), the court applied its prior-precedent rule and held that state rather than federal law provides the measure of compensation to be paid to a landowner upon a private party’s exercise of federal eminent-domain power under the federal Natural Gas…
Declaratory Judgment Did Not Extinguish Right to Demand Prejudgment Interest Under Georgia Law
In FDIC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 23203 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2022), the Eleventh Circuit held that a demand for prejudgment interest made after entry of a declaratory judgment was timely under Georgia law. The FDIC, as receiver for Omni National Bank, sued some of Omni’s former officers…
Eleventh Circuit Upholds “Floating” Forum Selection Clause
In AFC Franchising, LLC v. Purugganan, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 22323 (11th Cir. Aug. 11, 2022), the Eleventh Circuit held that an individual consented to personal jurisdiction and venue by agreeing to a “floating” forum selection clause. Danilo Purugganan entered into a “Master Developer Agreement” with Doctors Express Franchising in 2009. The parties agreed that…
Rule 11 Motion May Be Filed After Final Judgment, Provided 21-Day Safe Harbor Period Has Run
The Eleventh Circuit recently confirmed that a litigant may file a Rule 11 motion even after final judgment has been entered—notwithstanding arguably contrary language in some of the court’s prior decisions—as long as the 21-day safe harbor period required by the rule has run. Huggins v. Lueder, Larkin & Hunter, LLC, 39 F.4th 1342 (11th…