Eleventh Circuit – Page 4

I. Whether there is a non-textual “integrality exception” to the mandatory requirement in the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) that a substitute arbitrator “shall” be appointed by the court whenever the parties’ chosen arbitrator is unavailable for “any … reason”? 9 U.S.C. § 5.

II. Whether a court may void an entire arbitration clause – and force the parties to litigate in court – despite the fact that the parties included a severance provision that, if applied, would render the arbitration clause enforceable?

Lower court materials here.

District court materials here.

Cert Stage Briefs in Seminole Tribe v. Florida Dept. of Revenue

December 1, 2014December 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Seminole Cert Petition

Florida Cert Opp

Seminole Reply Brief

Question presented:

The question presented is whether sovereign immunity bars an American Indian tribe from seeking Ex parte Young relief from the unconstitutional enforcement of a state tax scheme merely because that relief might require refunds for taxes unlawfully collected in the future.

Lower court materials and my commentary here.

Eleventh Circuit Briefs and Updated Materials in IRS Subpoena Controversy with Miccosukee

November 25, 2014December 10, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the appellate materials in United States v. Billie:

Miccosukee Opening Brief

US Appellee Brief

Billie Reply

District court materials:

19 Miccosukee Response to Summons

21 US Reply

26 DCT Order Enforcing Subpoena

31 Miccosukee Motion to Stay

33 US Response

34 DCT Order Denying Motion for Stay

35 US Motion for Contempt 36 DCT Order Denying Motion

38 US Second Motion for Contempt

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Inetianbor v. Cashcall

October 3, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

This appeal arises out of a disagreement between Abraham Inetianbor, who borrowed money at a high interest rate, and CashCall, Inc., the servicer of Mr. Inetianbor’s loan. Mr. Inetianbor filed a lawsuit against CashCall, which then sought to compel arbitration based on the loan agreement. The District Court ultimately refused to compel arbitration because the arbitration agreement in the loan document contained a forum selection clause that was integral to the agreement, and the specified forum was not available to arbitrate the dispute. CashCall appeals that decision here. After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.

Briefs here:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Cert Petition in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida Dept. of Revenue

September 30, 2014September 30, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Seminole Cert Petition

Here is the question presented:

This Court established in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), that a plaintiff may sue state officials for prospective injunctive relief against the enforcement of an unconstitutional state law. In the intervening years, this Court and most courts of appeals have repeatedly held that Ex parte Young allows federal courts to enjoin the future enforcement of state tax schemes that violate federal law or the Constitution. This Court has also observed that an injunction requiring a state’s future compliance with federal law does not violate state sovereign immunity, even if it has a “substantial ancillary effect on the state treasury.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 278 (1986).

In this case, however, the Eleventh Circuit concluded otherwise. It departed from this Court’s precedent, and “create[d] a circuit split,” Pet. App. 24a (Jordan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), when it held that Ex parte Young does not permit the Seminole Tribe of Florida to seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the future unconstitutional enforcement of Florida’s fuel tax scheme. The court’s holding turned on the fact that Florida precollects this tax from a third party, which means that an order barring future enforcement against the tribes might require the state to issue tribal consumers refunds “from state coffers,” supposedly in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. Pet. App. 12a.

The question presented is whether sovereign immunity bars an American Indian tribe from seeking Ex parte Young relief from the unconstitutional enforcement of a state tax scheme merely because that relief might require refunds for taxes unlawfully collected in the future.

Lower court materials and my commentary here.