Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

YOUNG v. CARGILL JUICE N.A., 343 Fed.Appx. 585 (11th Cir. 2009)

Lorene YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARGILL JUICE N. Am., INC.,f.n.a. Cargill Citro-America, Inc., Defendant-Appellee Cross Claimant, KCCromwell, Inc., f.n.a. Spartan Premier, Inc., d.b.a. Citrus ForceStaffing, Defendant Cross Defendant., 343 F. App'x 585 (11th Cir. 2009)

Type: Opinion
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 2009-09-09
Topic: general

YOUNG v. CARGILL JUICE N.A., 343 Fed.Appx. 585 (11th Cir. 2009) Lorene YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARGILL JUICE NORTH AMERICA, INC.,f.n.a. Cargill Citro-America, Inc., Defendant-Appellee Cross Claimant, KCCromwell, Inc., f.n.a. Spartan Premier, Inc., d.b.a.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed YOUNG v. CARGILL JUICE N.A., 343 Fed.Appx. 585 (11th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

YOUNG v. CARGILL JUICE N.A.,343 Fed.Appx. 585(11th Cir. 2009)

Lorene YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARGILL JUICE NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

f.n.a. Cargill Citro-America, Inc., Defendant-Appellee Cross Claimant, KC

Cromwell, Inc., f.n.a. Spartan Premier, Inc., d.b.a. Citrus Force

Staffing, Defendant Cross Defendant.

No. 09-10315 Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

September 9, 2009.

Marcia Vestylena Forsett, The Forsett Law Office, Bartow, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James M. Drozdowski, Hahn Loeser Parks, LLP, Cleveland, OH, Dawn R. Hays, Hahn Loeser Parks LLP, Columbus, OH, for Defendant-Appellee Cross Claimant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 06-01350-CV-T-27-MAP.

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is a personal injury case. The district court granted defendant summary judgment on the ground that defendant was plaintiff's statutory employer and entitled to immunity from suit pursuant to Florida's Workers' Compensation Act. Plaintiff appeals, contending that the "intentional tort" exception to such immunity applies and that material issues of fact remain to be litigated regarding that exception. We disagree, and therefore affirm. The intentional tort exception does not apply for the reasons stated in the district court's December 15, 2008,2008 WL 5235133, order granting appellee summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩