Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., Case Nos. 16-16486 & 16-16783 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc).
Parties cannot stipulate that a federal court has jurisdiction and the requirement of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.1540 (2016), that a plaintiff must plead (and later support) aninjury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent (not just conjectural or hypothetical) applies to statutory claims that set forth damages for a statutory violation, including claims under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.
In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure—2020 Fast-Track Report, Case No. SC20-1374 (Fla. 2020).
The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure are amended to incorporate the change of county court appeals proceeding directly to district courts of appeal.
Abu-Khadier v. City of Fort Myers, Case No. 2D18-3068 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
Government can order the closing of a business, i.e., conduct a temporary taking, but is liable for the taking unless the government can identify background principles of nuisance and property law – such as extensive drug and criminal activity at the business – that support the order of closure and taking.
Kuhnsman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 2D19-681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
The “face to face” meeting required under HUD, 24 C.F.R.§ 203.604(b) (2016), is subject to a substantial performance standard.
Forty One Yellow, LLC v. Escalona, Case No. 2D18-3730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
Failure to re-establish a lost promissory note is not a bar under res judicata or collateral estoppel to a later foreclosure suit as the focus is whether the foreclosure action, not the promissory note, is barred by the doctrines.
Sunseeker Investments, Inc. v. Enterprise Maintenance and Contracting, Inc., Case No. 1D19-3779 (Fla. 1st DC 2020).
Five factors mustbe met for collateral estoppel to bar the re-litigation of an issue:(1) the identical issue must have been presented in theprior proceeding; (2) the issue must have been a criticaland necessary part of the prior determination; (3) there must have been a full and fair opportunity to litigate thatissue; (4) the parties in the two proceedings must beidentical; and (5) the issue must have been actuallylitigated, thus the issue of interest rate not determined in bankruptcy court does not bind a state trial court judge.
SHEDDF2-FL3, LLC v. Penthouse South, LLC, Case No. 3D19-1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
Avoidance of a contract for unconscionability requires both procedural and substantive unconscionability and a settlement agreement cannot be avoided if it is devoid of procedural unconscionability.
Regions Bank v. Squitieri, Case No. 3D20-578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
The COVID-19 pandemic is not a valid basis for a trial court failing to conduct,as required by Florida Statutes Section 77.041(3), a prompt evidentiary hearing on claim of exemptions from garnishment.
Devino v. 2436 East Las Olas, LLC, Case No. 4D19-1931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
Easements in gross are not favored by the courts and an easement is not presumed to be personal when it may fairly be construed as appurtenantto some other estate.
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Deshpande, Case No. 3D19-1566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
An award of attorney’s fees of $441,805.14 with four attorneys billing 469 hours on a garden-variety case while obtaining an award of only $25,000 is excessive.
Dyck-O’Neal, Inc. v. Herman, Case No. 4D19-3311 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
A 1099-A need not be authenticated if a borrower testifies receiving it, but the information contained in the 1099-A itself is hearsay.
Rajabi v. Villas at Lakeside Condominium Association, Inc.,Case No. 5D18-852 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020).
Sending a unit owner’s disputed monthly payments to the association attorney (who deposited the amounts into his trust account) but not crediting for payments made is a violation of the declaration of condominium.
Bailey v. Women’s Pelvic Health, LLC, Case No. 1D19-1444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).
Arbitration provisions which cover claims “arising out of or related to” apply not only to claims arising out of the parties’ employment agreements, but also to those claims with a significant relationship to the agreements – including those with a contractual nexus.
MV Senior Management, LLC v. Redus Florida Housing, LLC, Case No. 1D20-111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).
The Wrongful Act Doctrine basis for awarding attorney’s fees applies only to litigation ensuing from a party’s wrongful act against a third party.
Murphy Auto Group, Inc. v. Florida Department of Transportation, Case No. 2D19-1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
Requiring a private landowner to pay for a new drainage system in order for the landowner to connect to a roadway owned by the government is an improper exaction under Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595, 605-06 (2013).
Piazenko v. Pier Marine Interiors GMBH, Case No. 3D19-2193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
Long-arm jurisdiction in Florida can be either specific under Florida Statute section 48.193(1)(a) or general under section 48.193(2), and specific jurisdiction requires “connexity,” i.e., that the defendant does one of the enumerated acts within Florida, and that plaintiff’s cause of action “arise from” one of the enumerated acts occurringin Florida.
Triton Stone Holdings, L.L.C. v. Magna Business, L.L.C., Case No. 4D19-2371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
A handwritten agreement detailing the resolution of a limited liability company that does not comport with the previously executed operating agreement for the limited liability company is not effective even if partially acted upon.
IATAI Enterprises, Inc. v. Loyacono, Case No. 3D19-1831 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
Florida Rule of CivilProcedure 1.280(b)(5) does not apply to non-parties and a non-party objecting to discovery propounded upon it cannot be compelled to produce a log.
Merle Wood & Associates, Inc. v. Frazer, Case No. 4D19-2238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
A party claiming unjust enrichment must prove the value of the benefit provided to and retained by the defendant; providing evidence of the contractual value of commissions is not sufficient substantial, competent evidence of the unjust enrichment.
Indian River County v. Ocean Concrete, Inc., Case No. 4D19-3611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
Damages for violation of the Bert Harris Act, Florida Statute section 70.001, arise from the loss of the investment backed expectation and valuation is not based on the ability of the owner to attain its goal, the date when the owner could attain its goal, or on the highest and best use (value) of the property. An owner can testify as to the loss of investment backed expectation.