Hills McGee v. Sentinel Offender Services, LLC
719 F.3d 1236
11th Cir.2013Background
- McGee pled no contest to two misdemeanors in Georgia; sentenced to 24 months, suspended execution, placed on 24-month probation with $39 monthly Sentinel fee.
- Sentinel, a private probation company contracted by the county, supervised probation and sought arrearages after nonpayment and nonreporting.
- Probation revoked; alternative sanction: pay arrearage now or face two months in jail; McGee did neither and was jailed.
- McGee filed a state habeas petition challenging confinement; court granted habeas relief; later Sentinel letters prompted a civil suit in Georgia and subsequent removal to federal court under CAFA.
- District Court granted summary judgment for Sentinel on RICO and dismissed constitutional challenge for lack of notice; final judgment AFFIRMED on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA removal jurisdiction sufficiency | McGee argues CAFA amount-in-controversy not proven | Sentinel provided a binding, precise fee-collection total | Removal proper; CAFA amount proven by Sentinel’s declaration |
| Georgia RICO predicate-acts and intent | Sentinel intended to deceive; two acts of theft by deception shown | No evidence of Sentinel’s intent; clerical errors refute deceit | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine issue on intent to deceive |
| Corporate liability for specific intent | Sentinel could be liable via corporate mens rea based on collective knowledge | Georgia does not recognize collective intent doctrine for corporate criminal liability | Rejects collective intent theory; Georgia law not recognizing it; no liability |
| Constitutional challenge to O.C.G.A. § 42-8-100(g) and notice | Statute unconstitutional; needs Attorney General notice | Notice requirement not satisfied; no jurisdiction over challenge | Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over constitutionality challenge; dismissed to extent raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006) (CAFA jurisdiction requires amount in controversy based on record, not limitations)
- Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2001) (burden on removing defendant to prove CAFA amount by preponderance)
- Henson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 261 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2001) (review of removal jurisdiction de novo)
- Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes from pre-suit computations; cannot rely on limitations to defeat jurisdiction)
- N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 (1909) (corporate liability may be based on employee knowledge)