Eversheds Sutherland 11th Circuit Business Blog
content top

Spirited Court Widens Circuit Split Over Who Decides Class Arbitrability

In Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Maizes, 2018 WL 3866335 (11th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018), the Eleventh Circuit concluded that an arbitration agreement providing that the rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) will cover all disputes constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended for an arbitrator to decide whether class arbitration is available. Members of a...

A Default in Proceeding with Arbitration Does Not Necessarily Authorize a Default Judgment in Federal Court

In Hernandez v. Acosta Tractors Inc., 2018 WL 3761126 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2018), the Eleventh Circuit held that a party’s default in proceeding with arbitration after requesting it did not necessarily warrant entry of default judgment against that party in federal court. Julio Hernandez sued his former employer, Acosta Tractors, and two of its officers under the Fair Labor Standards...

Eleventh Circuit Declines to Revisit Dreadlocks Discrimination Case En Banc

Nearly a full year after issuing a revised opinion supporting an initial holding that hairstyles and other “cultural characteristics”—like dreadlocks—cannot form the basis for a Title VII claim of intentional racial discrimination, the Eleventh Circuit denied the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s petition for rehearing en banc in EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions (CMS),...

Eleventh Circuit Digs Deep to Revive SCAD Trademark Suit

In an October 3, 2017, opinion, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit reversed the Northern District of Georgia’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant in a trademark-infringement suit brought by Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD).  In Savannah College of Art and Design, Inc. v. Sportswear, Inc., 2017 WL 4369451, the court held that the district court erred in concluding that...

The Federal Medical Device Amendments Do Not Preempt All State-Law Claims

The Eleventh Circuit applied Florida law and the preemption provisions of the federal Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c et seq., to reverse the district court’s dismissal of some, but not all, of a plaintiff’s claims against the manufacturer of a hip-replacement device. Mink v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2017 WL 2723913 (11th Cir. June 26, 2017). The device at issue—a...

« Older Entries