Eversheds Sutherland 11th Circuit Business Blog
content top

“Once-Upon-A-Time” Injury Insufficient to Establish Article III Standing to Seek Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

The Eleventh Circuit has dismissed for lack of standing a trucking company’s suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”). Flat Creek Trans., LLC v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 2019 WL 2049770 (May 9, 2019). Flat Creek Transportation claimed that FMCSA had unfairly targeted the company for compliance reviews,...

Eleventh Circuit Holds Forum Non Conveniens Requires Consideration of Both Private and Public Interest Factors

The Eleventh Circuit held this week that district courts must consider both private and public interest factors when contemplating dismissal for forum non conveniens, a doctrine relevant when “a foreign forum is better suited to adjudicate the dispute.” Fresh Results, LLC v. ASF Holland, B.V., 2019 WL 1758863 (11th Cir. Apr. 22, 2019). Private factors are those pertaining to the...

Supreme Court Grants Review of Eleventh Circuit Case, Among Others, to Decide Title VII’s Application to LGBT Discrimination

The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in a number of cases considering whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against LGBT employees, including a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 723 F. App’x 964 (May 10, 2018). In Bostock, a panel of Judges Tjoflat, Wilson, and Newsom affirmed, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, the dismissal of the...

A Takings Claim By Any Other Name . . . May Not Succeed

In Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County, 2019 WL 580259 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2019), the Eleventh Circuit confirmed that allegedly unlawful application of a land-use ordinance does not give rise to a substantive due process claim.  As the court previously held in McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994), “executive action never gives rise to a substantive-due-process claim...

Arbitration on a Hot Shingled Roof: Homeowners Bound by Arbitration Agreement Printed on Shingle Wrapping

Homeowners are bound by a mandatory-arbitration provision printed conspicuously on the wrapping around packages of shingles when the packages are opened and installed by the homeowners’ roofers, as a matter of Florida contract law.  Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., 2018 WL 5729085 (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018). Two Florida homeowners whose roofers had purchased, opened, and installed...

« Older Entries