Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., Case No. 15–1189 (2017).
Sale of a patented product in the United States “exhausts” the patent rights in the product.
Taylor Engineering, Inc. v. Dickerson Florida, Inc., Case No. 1D15-4782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
The First District adopts the “nominal exposure standard” for determining whether a proposal for settlement is made in good faith, i.e., a proposal is made in good faith when the “offeror had a reasonable basis to conclude that his/her exposure wasnominal or minimal.”
The City of Pensacola v. Seville Harbour, Inc., Case No. 1D16-2481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
Pro tantoassignments of leases are recognized in Florida, and the retention of an easement when assigning a lease renders the lease transfer a pro tanto assignment and not a sublease since the assignor has retained an interest, i.e., the easement.
Department of Transportation v. Butler Carpet Company, Case No. 2D15-2030 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
A property owner is not entitled to severancedamages for loss of access if the claimed loss of access is not caused by the use to whichthe property taken has been applied, but is entitled to severance damages if there is a direct connection between the activity on the taken property and theclaimed loss of access.
Anderson v. Taylor Morrison Of Florida, Inc., Case No. 2D16-314 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2017).
An arbitration provision which limits statutory claims is void as against public policy.
Collier HMA Physician Management, LLC v. Menichello, Case No. 2D16-1204 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2017).
A court must look to the corporate formalities and not the “substance” of corporate transaction in determining whether an entity is a “successor employer” within the meaning of Florida Statute section 542.335(1)(f).
City of Key West v. Key West Golf Club Homeowners’, Case No. 3D13-57 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2017).
A municipality may, as part of its legislative functions, require those who benefit from a storm water management system to participate in and pay for the system.
Miranda v. Pacheco Entertainment Production Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3D16-1951 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2017).
While a court is required to dissolve a temporary injunction where there is clear legal error, Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, Inc. v. MMB Props., 211 So. 3d 918, 925-26 (Fla. 2017), it has no such requirement in regard to permanent injunctions.
Nikolits v. Haney, Case No. 4D15-4464 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
The property appraiser for a county may issue a Certificate of Correction under FloridaAdministrative Code Rule 12D-8.021(2)(a)(6), but an affected property owner may challenge the corrected value as being beyond market value.
Symcon Development Group Corporation v. Passero, Case No. 4D16-2641 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
The anticipated purchaser of real property which is the subject of litigation between the seller of the real property and a third party has a sufficient interest in the pending litigation to deviate from the normal rule so as to allow the non-party purchaser to intervene in the litigation.
Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Case No. 16–529 (2017).
The statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. §2462 limits the Securities and Exchange Commission to five-years to bring disgorgement as well as civil penalty claims.
Town of Chester, New York v. Laroe Estates, Inc., Case No. 16–605 (2017).
Parties seeking to intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) must meet the requirements of Article III standing if the intervenor seeks relief not requested by a plaintiff.
Surterra Florida, LLC v. Florida Department of Health, Case No. 1D16-4091 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
The names of investors and partners submitted to a governmental agency can constitute a “trade secret” under Florida Statute section 812.081(1)(c) such that the names are not subject to public disclosure under Florida law.
Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company of America v. Community Asphalt Corporation, Case No. 3D16-4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
A contract cannot override the venue provisions of the surety bond statute (Florida Statute section 255.05(1)(e)) and force venue in contravention of the statute.
Estimable v. Prophete, Case No. 4D16-725 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
A “safe harbor letter” under Florida Statute section 57.105 must strictly comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b)(1)(E), and requires“(i) the attachment of a copy of the document in PDF format, and a link to the document on a website maintained by a clerk; (ii) the subject line begin with the words ‘SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT’ in all capital letters, followed by the case number; and (iii) the body of the e-mail identify the court in which the case is pending, the case number, the name of the initial party on each side, the title of each document served with that e-mail, and the name and telephone number of the person required to serve the document.’”
Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., Case No. 16–349 (2017).
Parties that collect debts (including purchased debt) are not “debt collectors” within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U. S. C. §1692a(6).
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, Case No. 15–457 (2017).
Federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1291 to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice as otherwise would violate the finality principle.
Treasure Coast Marina, LC v. The City of Fort Pierce, Florida, Case No. SC16-1107 (Fla. 2017).
A municipally owned and operated marina qualifies as an exempt “municipal or public purpose” under Article VII, Section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution, and is therefore exempt from ad valorem taxation.
Desylvester v. The Bank Of New York Mellon, Case No. 2D15-5053 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
Upon rehearing, the Second District re-affirms that a foreclosure complaint that alleges that “all subsequent payments” have not been made within five years is sufficient to withstand a statute of limitations attack notwithstanding the original date of default was not within five years.
Isla Blue Development, LLC v. Moore, Case No. 2D16-1718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
A “safe harbor notice” under Florida Statute section 57.105 need not comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516, i.e., need not be served via email and otherwise, in order to be effective. Conflict certified with Matte v. Caplan, 140 So. 3d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Head v. Sorensen, Case No. 2D16-3665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
Questions of fact as to whether one party to a contract has acted in bad faith by helping procure an event that would cause the contract to terminate renders summary judgment in favor of that party improper.