13 results for 'judge:"Newsom"'.
[Consolidated.] J. Newsom denies the immigrant's petition for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing the appeal of his application for adjustment of status and denying his motion for reconsideration. The board applied the correct standard in rejecting the immigrant's claim and finding that the immigrant was not entitled to discretionary relief in light of his criminal record and bad character.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 22-11065, Categories: Immigration
J. Newsom finds that the lower court improperly ruled in favor of defendant police officers on wrongful death claims brought by a woman whose son died following an interaction with police. The evidence indicates that reasonable individuals could determine that the officers' tases and kicks caused the son's death.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: 22-11675, Categories: Wrongful Death
J. Newsom finds that the district court properly denied the resort companies' motion to stay litigation and direct to arbitration a class action brought by timeshare purchasers against the companies with respect to most of the purchasers. The action arose after the purchasers' attempts to arbitrate breach of contract and fraud claims against the companies were rejected by the American Arbitration Association due to the companies' failure to comply with the Association's policies. The district court correctly found that the companies were in default with the Association. Six purchasers who either had petitions rejected by the Association or whose agreements included arbitration provisions can proceed to litigation. However, two purchasers who had an agreement with different resort-related entities must return to the district court for further consideration of the Federal Arbitration Act's applicability to their claims. Affirmed in part.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: 22-11504, Categories: Arbitration, Class Action
J. Newsom vacates the prior panel opinion issued in the case and substitutes the instant opinion finding that the district court improperly ruled in favor of the school resource officer in a malicious prosecution action brought by a mother after the officer caused her to be arrested for child cruelty for failing to pick her 17-year-old son up promptly after school due to her work schedule. The mother spent four days in jail but the charges against her were eventually dismissed. The officer made material omissions in her affidavits in support of the charges, including omitting her knowledge that the son had chosen to stay at the school instead of transferring to another school with better transportation options. No reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest the mother for child cruelty, therefore the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Reversed.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: October 27, 2023, Case #: 22-11141, Categories: Malicious Prosecution, Immunity
J. Newsom finds that the district court improperly ruled in favor of the school resource officer in a malicious prosecution action brought by the mother after the officer caused her to be arrested for child cruelty for failing to pick her 17-year-old son up promptly after school due to her work schedule. The mother spent four days in jail but the charges against her were eventually dismissed. The officer made material omissions in her affidavits in support of the charges, including omitting her knowledge that the son had chosen to stay at the school instead of transferring to another school with better transportation options. No reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest the mother for child cruelty, therefore the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Reversed.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: 22-11141, Categories: Malicious Prosecution, Immunity
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Newsom finds that the district court improperly convicted defendant of violating a statute criminalizing the filing of false retaliatory liens against federal officials. Defendant filed 16 liens against property owned by people he felt had wronged him, including four liens against a former Commissioner of the IRS and a former Secretary of the Treasury, filed when they were already retired from government service. Former civil servants do not count as officers or employees of the United States under the meaning of the statute. The case is remanded for resentencing. Vacated.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: October 11, 2023, Case #: 20-10545, Categories: Sentencing, Tort
J. Newsom finds that the district court properly convicted defendant of mailing a threatening communication and threatening a federal official. Defendant wrote in an objection to a federal magistrate judge's recommendation in a separate case that he was "threatening [the judge] with death and bodily harm." The objection also said defendant was "threatening [the judge] who is a woman of color with death" and included a link to a YouTube video of defendant holding a Black preacher's hand as a gospel hymn played. The district court correctly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. Although defendant was hospitalized for longer than the four months permitted by the statute, the violation does not warrant dismissal of the indictment. Any error committed by the district court in commenting on the religious language and imagery in the hymn when sentencing defendant to 60 months in prison was harmless. Affirmed.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 22-10509, Categories: Sentencing, Threats
J. Newsom finds that the district court improperly granted the car owners' motion for class certification in a putative false advertising and fraud class action arising from Ford's claim that its Shelby GT350 Mustang was "track ready." Claims brought by owners under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protect Act and for common law fraud under Washington, Tennessee or New York law cannot be certified for class treatment because proving an individual's reliance on Ford's alleged misstatements will require individualized evidence. However, owners alleging claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and New York's or Washington's consumer fraud statutes do not need to prove that they relied on any alleged misstatement by Ford. The case is remanded to allow the district court to consider whether the facts support a presumption of reliance for claims under three California laws. Reversed in part.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: July 7, 2023, Case #: 22-10575, Categories: Class Action, False Advertising
J. Newsom finds that the district court improperly sentenced defendant to 60 months in prison after his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court incorrectly found that defendant's earlier youthful-offender adjudication for robbery constituted an adult conviction under the meaning of the applicable guidelines provision. Defendant was 16 years old when he committed the robbery offense and Alabama law does not treat youthful-offender adjudications as convictions. The youthful-offender system differs from the adult system in substance and procedure and the two cannot be conflated. Vacated.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: July 6, 2023, Case #: 22-10502, Categories: Firearms, Sentencing
J. Newsom vacates the panel's prior opinion in the case and substitutes the instant opinion granting the immigrant's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that she is ineligible for relief under a provision whose language was originally adopted as part of the Violence Against Women Act and which is meant to enable certain domestic abuse victims to obtain discretionary deportation relief. The immigration judge and the board misinterpreted the provision in finding that the immigrant had not been subjected to extreme cruelty and applied an incorrect legal standard in evaluating her request for cancellation of removal. The board incorrectly interpreted the term "extreme cruelty" to require proof of physical abuse.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: 22-10445, Categories: Immigration
J. Newsom finds that the district court improperly found in favor of the insurer in an action brought by the hospitals seeking damages for out-of-network emergency treatment they provided to the insurer's customers. The hospitals allege that the insurer reimbursed them for only 15% of what they had charged. A genuine issue of fact exists as to what the typical provider charges for services in the community where the hospitals' services were rendered to the insureds. Vacated.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 22-10514, Categories: Health Care, Insurance
J. Newsom finds that the district court properly ruled in favor of the prison officials in a civil rights action brought by the decedent's sister alleging that he had two seizures while incarcerated and suffered permanent brain damage because he did not receive his seizure medication. The officials were not deliberately indifferent to the brother's medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The lieutenant did not know that missing medication for a few days could produce a serious health risk and the sergeant was not grossly negligent for failing to tell a nurse directly about the medication administration problems. Although there is evidence that two of the nurses disregarded the risk of a serious health concern to the brother, their conduct was not more than grossly negligent. Affirmed.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: 21-14275, Categories: Civil Rights, Negligence
J. Newsom partially grants the immigrant's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision denying her request for cancellation of removal. The board applied an incorrect standard in finding that the immigrant is ineligible for relief under a battered spouse provision of a statute whose language was originally adopted as part of the Violence Against Women Act. The board interpreted the phrase "extreme cruelty" in the provision to require proof of physical abuse, but the phrase is instead best understood to include mental and emotional abuse. Therefore, proof of mental or emotional abuse is sufficient to satisfy the provision.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Newsom, Filed On: May 18, 2023, Case #: 22-10445, Categories: Immigration