In U.S. Nutraceuticals, LLC v. Cyanotech Corp., Case No. 13-12863 (decided October 30, 2014), the Eleventh Circuit addressed the issue of whether a court or an arbitrator must decide the question whether a particular dispute is subject to arbitration. The Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in that case strongly endorses the view that the arbitrator must decide that issue. U.S. Nutraceuticals (also known as Valensa) were parties to two contracts with Cyanotech, one made in 2007 and a second made in 2010. The 2007 contract had a broad arbitration clause. The 2010 contract had a very similar arbitration clause; however, the 2010… Read more
Tag: Georgia Appellate
The Eleventh Circuit Addresses When An Amendment To A Statute of Repose Applies To A Pending Case
In Bryant v. United States, Case No. 12-15424 (decided October 14, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed when an amendment to a statute of repose can apply in a pending case. Although the case addressed North Carolina law, the principles it discussed have general application. The Bryant case arose out of a multi-district litigation in which multiple parties alleged that they experienced health problems after being exposed to toxic substances in the drinking water while living on a military base in North Carolina. North Carolina has a statute of repose that provides that a… Read more
A Difficult Week for Expert Testimony in the Eleventh Circuit
This week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued two decisions reinforcing the high standard for admitting expert testimony in federal court. In Chapman v. Proctor & Gamble Distributing, LLC, Case No. 12-14502 (decided September 11, 2014), the Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the manufacturer of a denture adhesive in a products liability case. The plaintiff claimed that she suffered from a neurological condition allegedly resulting from the presence of zinc in the denture adhesive she had used for eight years. The plaintiff offered four experts to testify about the causal link between… Read more
Comcast and Dukes Come to Georgia
In Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 133 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), the United States Supreme Court issued two opinions that instructed federal trial courts to rigorously apply the standards for deciding whether or not to certify a class action. In Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, L.P. v. Ratner, Case No. S13G1723 (decided July 11, 2014), the Georgia Supreme Court cited Comcast and Dukes in issuing its own call for the rigorous application of the standards for certifying a class action. The plaintiffs in Ratner had sought the certification of a class of… Read more
Attempting to Collect A Time-Barred Consumer Debt in Bankruptcy Violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Stanley Crawford owed a debt to a furniture company; but, that debt was unenforceable because collection was barred by the applicable state statute of limitations. Another party purchased that debt from the furniture company. When Mr. Crawford filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, the holder of that time-barred debt filed a proof of claim in bankruptcy court in an effort to collect that debt. Mr. Crawford alleged that the party that had filed the proof of claim violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by asserting a time-barred claim. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded… Read more
The Eleventh Circuit Addresses Liability for Penalties for Understating Tax Liabilities
In Carlson v. United States, Case No. 12-13736 (decided June 13, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed several important issues regarding when a tax return preparer is liable for penalties for preparing returns that understate a client’s tax liability. Ms. Carlson worked as a tax return preparer for two different companies. The IRS conducted audits of hundreds of tax returns she had prepared for clients and determined that 40 contained deductions that could not be substantiated. The IRS assessed a 15 percent penalty against Ms. Carlson for aiding and abetting the understatement of tax… Read more
Emotional Distress Damages Recoverable for Violation of Bankruptcy Automatic Stay
In Lodge v. Kondaur Capital Corp., Case No. 13-10919 (decided May 8, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided an issue that it never previously addressed: whether a party could recover damages under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) for emotional distress resulting from another party’s violation of the automatic stay in bankruptcy. In Lodge, the Court held that such damages were recoverable but could not be recovered in the particular circumstances of that case. The plaintiffs owned a home subject to a mortgage. One of the owners filed for bankruptcy, which resulted in an automatic stay against… Read more
Georgia Is Not An “Iqbal-Twombly” Jurisdiction
In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the United States Supreme Court created a heightened standard for pleading in federal court. A complaint must contain sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief. This higher standard has led to more successful challenges to pleadings in federal court. See The Eleventh Circuit Reinforces a High Pleading Standard (posted March 14, 2014). However, the Georgia state courts have declined to embrace the Iqbal-Twombly standard and have continued to apply a very low threshold for pleading a claim for relief…. Read more
The Eleventh Circuit Addresses Apartment Complex Owner Liability Under the Fair Housing Act
In its decision in Harding v. Orlando Apartments, LLC, Case No. 13-11805 (decided April 14, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed a significant issue regarding the liability of the owner of an apartment complex under the Fair Housing Act. A portion of the Fair Housing Act addresses discrimination against the handicapped and requires that apartment complexes be designed and constructed to accommodate handicapped individuals. The Harding case addressed whether the owner of an apartment complex who had no role in the design and construction of the apartment complex could be held liable under the… Read more
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend Comes To The Eleventh Circuit
This blog previously reported on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1427 (2013). See “The United States Supreme Court Takes Another Look at Class Actions” (posted March 28, 2013). That decision required lower courts to take a hard look at class certifications, and particularly at the issue of whether or not damages could be proven on a class-wide basis. The Eleventh Circuit relied upon that decision to order a district court to reconsider the certification of class in Williams v. Multimedia Games, Inc., Case No. 13-12733 (decided April 2, 2014)…. Read more