|
Florida Lawyer Search - Listings for Burchett Charla M Atty
Name: Burchett Charla M Atty
Address: 621 N Washington Blvd Sarasota, FL 34236
Phone Number: 941-951-1866
|
Specialties:
|
Elder Law
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
SHAFFER LLOYD v VENEMAN, ANN, U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsSHAFFER LLOYD v VENEMAN, ANN 1000 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued January 23, 2003 Decided April 22, 2003 No. 02-5009 Lloyd Shaffer, Appellant v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (cv01729) Mona Lyons argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. Catherine Y. Hancock, Attorney, U.S. Department of Jus- tice, argued the cause for appellee. With her on the brief were David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed, Wilma A. Lewis, U.S. Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Robert M. Loeb, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Rogers and Tatel, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge Ginsburg. Ginsburg, Chief Judge: Lloyd Shaffer appeals the decision of the district court dismissing his case for want of jurisdic- tion. The district court held that Shaffer's claim, which was based upon a settlement agreement he made with the United States Department of Agriculture bringing to an end both his individual case and his participation in a class-action lawsuit against the USDA, was a contract claim in excess of $10,000, and was therefore, under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. We affirm. I. Background Lloyd Shaffer is a Mississippi farmer who has received assistance from the USDA during much of the past thirty years. In 1997 he filed in the district court a race discrimina- tion claim against the USDA regarding loan applications he made in 1992 and 1997. Shaffer later joined as a named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit in the same court, covering essentially the same issues, Pigford et al. v. Glickman, Civil Action No. 97-1978 (D.D.C....
RIOGRANDE UNDERWRITE v PITTS FARMS INC IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40823 Summary Calendar RIO GRANDE UNDERWRITERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PITTS FARMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas _ December 18, 2001 Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit Judges. REAVLEY, Circuit Judge: Rio Grande Underwriters, Inc. (Rio Grande) appeals the district court's order dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, its petition for a stay and order compelling arbitration. For the reasons that follow we AFFIRM. Pitts Farms, an onion grower, filed suit in state court alleging state law claims against Rio Grande for its failure to procure the right crop insurance coverage on Pitts' behalf.(1) When Pitts Farms sustained losses to its onion crop, it found that the insurance policy in place failed to designate its red and yellow onions into separate units. According to Pitts Farms, the failure to designate the onion types as separate insurable units as permitted by federal regulations prevented Pitts from fully recovering for its losses. Rio Grande seeks to avoid the litigation in state court by enforcing arbitration provisions in its contracts with Pitts Farms. Unable to obtain relief in state court, Rio Grande filed a petition in federal court requesting a stay and order compelling arbitration. Such relief is available in federal district court under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) only if the court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying civil action. 9 U.S.C. § 4. Although Rio Grande has suggested numerous bases for jurisdiction, the district court properly found them to be without merit. First, Rio Grande argues that because its contracts with Pitts Farms relate to interstate commerce, it follows that the FAA applies and that the case may therefore be heard in federal c...
|
|
|