Juan A. Salinas v. Sue Ann Ramsey
858 F.3d 1360
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Juan Salinas and Lucila Fuentes obtained a federal-court judgment (Sept. 23, 2004) against Sue Ann Ramsey under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime. The clerk issued writs of execution in 2004 and 2005, but no collection steps followed for over a decade.
- On May 15, 2015 the judgment creditors moved in the same federal district court to compel post-judgment discovery to aid collection.
- The district court denied the motion as untimely, relying on this Court’s decision in Balfour Beatty Bahamas, Ltd. v. Bush, which applied Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(a)’s five-year limitations period to similar post-judgment discovery requests.
- The Eleventh Circuit panel observed that a Florida appellate court (Burshan) had later criticized Balfour’s reasoning and concluded the Florida limitations statutes did not apply to post-judgment discovery aiding execution of an existing judgment.
- Because federal precedent (Balfour) conflicts with a Florida appellate decision (Burshan) and the question implicates unsettled state-law interpretation, the Eleventh Circuit certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: what limitations period, if any, applies to a request for post-judgment discovery brought in federal district court in Florida on a judgment entered by that same federal district court?
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Florida limitations period bars post-judgment discovery in federal court more than five years after judgment | Salinas/Fuentes: Burshan shows Balfour was wrongly decided; post-judgment discovery is for executing an existing judgment and should not be time-barred by § 95.11(2)(a) | Ramsey: Balfour controls—§ 95.11(2)(a)’s five-year period applies to actions on judgments and bars late post-judgment enforcement efforts | The court declined to decide and certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court for authoritative state-law guidance |
| Whether Eleventh Circuit should follow its prior panel precedent (Balfour) when a state appellate court interprets state law differently | Salinas/Fuentes: Point to state-court disagreement (Burshan) undermining Balfour | Ramsey: Follow Eleventh Circuit precedent (Balfour) unless overruled | The panel acknowledged the conflict and certified the state-law question to avoid making a doubtful guess about Florida law |
Key Cases Cited
- Balfour Beatty Bahamas, Ltd. v. Bush, 170 F.3d 1048 (11th Cir. 1999) (applied Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(a)’s five-year period to bar late post-judgment discovery)
- Burshan v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 805 So.2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (held Florida limitations statutes did not apply to post-judgment discovery aimed at executing an existing judgment)
- Young v. McKenzie, 46 So.2d 184 (Fla. 1950) (distinguished actions on a judgment from post-judgment discovery/proceedings to execute an existing judgment)
- Kiesel v. Graham, 388 So.2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (applied the five-year statute to enforcement proceedings involving federal-court judgments)
- Leasco Response, Inc. v. Wright, 99 F.3d 381 (11th Cir. 1996) (certified question to Florida Supreme Court about which Florida limitations period governs enforcement of judgments)
- Buse v. Kuechenberg, 325 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2003) (acknowledged conflict between Eleventh Circuit precedent and Florida appellate reasoning and certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court)
- EmbroidMe.com, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 845 F.3d 1099 (11th Cir. 2017) (noting the panel-precedent rule and the exception when a state court interprets its own law differently)