SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(US)(ca11) 144

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
TB Foods USA LLC – Appellant
Versus
American Mariculture Inc. – Respondent



[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12936 ____________________

PB LEGACY, INC, a Texas corporation, Plaintiff, TB FOOD USA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross Appellant, versus AMERICAN MARICULTURE, INC., a Florida corporation, AMERICAN PENAEID, INC., a Florida corporation, ROBIN PEARL, USCA11 Case: 22-12936 Document: 92-1 Date Filed: 06/18/2024 Page: 2 of 27

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12936

Defendants-Appellants Cross Appellees,

ADVANCED HATCHERY TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cv-00009-JES-NPM ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and BRASHER, Cir- cuit Judges. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: This appeal and cross-appeal raise several issues concerning a civil jury trial about trade secrets, but the threshold issue— whether the magistrate judge had authority to conduct the last three days of proceedings—is dispositive. After counsel rested but before the jury returned its verdict, the district judge had to leave. Before his departure, the district judge proposed that a magistrate judge receive the verdict, and the parties agreed to that proposal. The magistrate judge not only received the verdict but responded to several jury questions and rejected a request for clarification USCA11 Case: 22-12936 Document: 92-1 Date Filed: 06/18/2024 Page: 3 of 27

22-12936 Opinion of the Court 3

about the verdict. Because the parties did not consent to have a magistrate judge perform non-ministerial duties, the magistrate judge improperly exercised Article III authority. We vacate the judgment, remand for a new trial, and dismiss the cross-appeal as moot. I. BACKGROUND About 15 years ago, cousins Ken and Neil Gervais founded Primo Broodstock, a shrimp breeding company based in Texas. Through phenotypic monitoring, the cousins developed a unique line of disease-resistant shrimp. Primo achieved success and sold shrimp all over the world. As the company grew, it needed more space to breed shrimp. Primo executed a contract with American Mariculture, Inc., a Florida-based company that operated a grow-out facility for shrimp breeding. But Primo failed to perform many of its contrac- tual obligations to Mariculture. Among other breaches, Primo failed to remove its shrimp from Mariculture’s facility on time. When Mariculture notified Primo that it intended to harvest the abandoned shrimp, Primo sued Mariculture in state court. Robin Pearl, the founder and chief executive officer of Mariculture, later met with Ken Gervais and another Primo employee to try to resolve the suit. The parties agreed to give Primo about three months to rem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top