Eleventh Circuit caps off the week (Part I)

After being quiet for a week, the Eleventh Circuit issued a wave of opinions Thursday and Friday. This post covers the two opinions issued by the court on Thursday, one on an issue of choice of (foreign) law for a tortious interference case, and the other involving application of the USDA's regulations regarding federal disaster assistance.

The case of Grupo Televisa v. Telemundo Communications Group arose when a Mexican soap opera actor under exclusive contract to Televisa (a spanish-language TV production conglomerate) accepted a role in a soap opera produced by rival Telemundo, sparking a tortious interference suit by Televisa. Televisa, a Mexican company, maintains an office in Florida, but broadcasts in the U.S. via license to Univision. Telemundo is owned by NBC Universal, and is headquartered in Hialeah, Florida. The district court found, under Florida's "most significant relationship" test, that the contacts with Mexico outweighed those with Florida; and since Mexican law does not have a cause of action for tortious interference, it granted summary judgment to Telemundo.

The Eleventh Circuit found that the district court's analysis overstated the extent to which the "needs of the interstate and international systems" favored application of Mexican law because, although the contract contained a choice of law provision for Mexican law, the cause of action was an intentional tort alleged against a Florida domiciliary (Telemundo). Accordingly, it vacated the district court's judgment in favor of Telemundo and remanded for further proceedings.

In Mahon v. USDA, two sets of plaintiffs -- John and Shelby Mahon, and Paul Mahon -- sought judicial review of the USDA's determinations denying their applications for $1.45 million in disaster assistance under 7 CFR § 1480.20 (part of the Crop Disaster Program) due to freezing temperatures that caused damage to the container-grown citrus trees in their nurseries. The basis for the denial was that the nurseries had not renewed their registrations with Lake County (FL) as commercial nurseries, although there was evidence that other growers had received benefits even though their certificates had also expired. In the course of several appeals, there was also a determination that benefits were limited because the Mahon's crop was an "ornamental nursery crop."

The Eleventh Circuit found that John & Shelby Mahon's challenge to the USDA's classification of their business as an "ornamental nursery" was waived (or, not administratively exhausted) because it was not raised during the USDA administrative appeals process. However, it found the USDA's determination that John & Shelby Mahon were not engaged in "commercial sale" because they were not registered with the state to be arbitrary and capricious because the USDA selectively applied the registration requirement to them (while it was not applied to other growers), and because the evidence otherwise showed that the Mahons were not growing over 175,000 trees in containers on their 126-acre nursery merely for personal use, but were, in fact, in the business of selling citrus trees.

Paul Mahon lost out on his appeal, however, because the appellate division of the USDA did not receive a personally-signed request for appeal from him within the time limit, as required. Rather, his attorney requested an appeal (without his client's signature).