The Eleventh Circuit published 5 opinions this week:
Kragor v. Takeda Pharms. Am., Inc.
Summary judgment reversed. Evidence that a corporate executive who terminated an employee for alleged misconduct but later said that the employee was an exceptional employee who had done nothing wrong and should not have been fired, coupled with a prima facie case, is sufficient to submit an age discrimination claim to a jury.
Miller’s Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, Inc.
Summary judgment affirmed. Common law trademark infringement claim was barred by issue preclusion where the Fourth Circuit, in previous litigation between the parties, had determined that the words “ale house” were generic and not entitled to protection. Common law trade dress claim failed as a matter of law, because the look of the restaurant was not inherently distinctive. Copyright infringement claim based on allegedly infringing floor plans failed, because the plaintiff and defendant’s restaurant floor plans were not substantially similar.
Harris v. Liberty Community Mgmt., Inc.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act imposes civil liability on debt collectors for certain prohibited debt collection practices, but it exempts some individuals and entities from its provisions. One such exemption under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(i) provides that the FDCPA does not apply to persons or entities “collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed . . . another to the extent such activity is incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation.” The Court held that this exemption applies to a management company that collects unpaid assessments on behalf of a homeowners association, as long as the collection of such assessments from homeowners is not central to the management company’s fiduciary obligations.
The Court sua sponte vacated and reconsidered its original opinion in this case. It determined that the district court’s cancellation of four registered service marks, based on a finding that those marks were procured by fraud, was erroneous a improperly borrowed the standard for considering the fraudulent procurement argument from a patent case.
Pooler v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corrections
The denial of a Florida death row inmate’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on allegedly ineffective assistance of counsel — where inmate argued that his attorney failed to discover that certain information the inmate himself had told the attorney was false and that his attorney relied on court-appointed competency experts instead of retaining an expert to investigate mitigation evidence — was not unreasonable.
The Eleventh Circuit also issued 41 unpublished opinions, which are available here.
Southern Appeal 