This legal document presents an appeal in the case of Labriola v. Miami-Dade County, heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. John Labriola, a former media aide, sued Miami-Dade County after being suspended and fired for an opinion piece critical of the Equality Act, which used inflammatory language. He claimed his First Amendment rights—free speech, free exercise, and free press—were violated, that he was compelled to speak, and that the County's anti-discrimination policy was unconstitutionally overbroad. The Appeals Court upheld the district court's decision to grant summary judgment to the County, finding that Labriola's speech interests did not outweigh the County's need for efficient operations, his free press and compelled speech claims lacked merit, and his overbreadth challenge was unsubstantiated.

This document is an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit regarding a lawsuit where ECB USA, Inc., and Atlantic Ventures Corp. (the buyers) sued Savencia Cheese USA, LLC, and several individuals (the sellers). The buyers alleged fraud and related torts against the sellers and tortious interference against Savencia Cheese after a business acquisition of a cheese distribution company went awry. The district court dismissed the claims, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction over the sellers and the buyers' failure to sufficiently state a claim against Savencia Cheese. This appellate court affirmedthe district court's decision, concluding that the sellers lacked minimum contacts with Florida to establish personal jurisdiction and that the buyers' complaint did not meet pleading standards for the claims against Savencia Cheese, though one circuit judge dissented regarding the tortious interference claim.

This excerpt from a United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit opinion addresses a breach-of-contract case between AST & Science LLC and Delclaux Partners SA. The core issue revolves around subject-matter jurisdiction, specifically whether the district court possessed federal-question jurisdiction after determining it lacked diversity jurisdiction. The appellate court reviews the application of the Grable test, a four-factor framework used to establish federal-question jurisdiction for state-law claims with embedded federal issues. Ultimately, the court concludes that the federal issue—whether Delclaux acted as an unregistered broker-dealer—is not "substantial" enough to warrant federal jurisdiction, leading to the vacation of the lower court's judgment and a remand for dismissal.