In what appears to be a first, the Eleventh Circuit recently held that federal law prohibits so-called “incentive payments” to class representatives, even as part of an agreed settlement. The court acknowledged that it was forging a new path in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244, 1248–49 (11th Cir. 2020)—identifying errors that it…
Tag: Judge Kevin Newsom
Conservation Easements with a Limited Reservation of Development Rights Are Potentially Deductible
In Pine Mountain Preserve LLLP v. Commissioner, 2020 WL 6193897 (11th Cir. Oct. 22, 2020), the Eleventh Circuit was asked whether a grantor’s reservation of limited development rights prevents a conservation easement from satisfying the requirements to claim a charitable deduction under the qualified conservation contribution rules of section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code….
Defendant Must Prove that Copied Portion of Copyrighted Work is Unprotectable
In Compulife Software Inc. v. Newman, 2020 WL 2549505 (11th Cir. May 20, 2020), the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a plaintiff, having established that the defendant copied part of a copyrighted work, need not prove that the copied portion was legally protectable; the defendant must prove that it was not. The court also reviewed the…
Tax Service’s Registered Trademark’s Suggestiveness Presented Jury Question
In Engineered Tax Services, Inc. v. Scarpello Consulting, Inc., 2020 WL 2478863 (11th Cir. May 14, 2020), the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Scarpello Consulting in a trademark dispute over the distinctiveness of the service mark “Engineered Tax Services,” citing previous rulings on substantive trademark law and its …
“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…
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…
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…
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…
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,…
Federal Law Does Not Prevent Foreclosure Against Surviving Spouse of “Reverse-Mortgage” Borrower If Contractually-Authorized
The federal statute that prevents HUD from insuring a reverse mortgage that permits foreclosure while the borrower’s surviving spouse lives in the mortgaged property does not similarly prohibit the lender from foreclosing after the borrower’s death, as long as the foreclosure is otherwise permitted by the loan documents. Estate of Jones v. Live Well Fin.,…