Real Property and Business Litigation Report
Volume VII, Issue 9
March 1, 2014
Caduceus Properties, LLC v. Graney, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 763137 (Fla. 2014).
An amended complaint, filed after the statute of limitations has expired but based on the same “conduct, transaction or occurrence” alleged in a timely filed third party complaint, relates back under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c) and is considered timely.
Schneider v. Spaeth, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 714485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Dismissal for failure to attend a court-ordered case management conference must be supported with a court finding of willful, contumacious disregard of the court order.
Gulliver Schools, Inc. v. Snay, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 769030 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
A settlement agreement containing a confidentiality provision prohibiting parties from “either directly or indirectly” disclosing the settlement to third parties is violated when some parties disclose to their child who posts the settlement result on social media.
Crystal Springs Partners, Ltd. v. Michael R. Band, P.A., — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 775463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
Substitute service on a non-resident under Fla. Stat. § 48.161 requires a party serve the Secretary of State and then deliver “forthwith” to the defendant a copy of the summons and complaint together with evidence of service on the Secretary. Service of the evidence, summons and complaint on the defendant forty-two days after service on the Secretary of State is not “forthwith,” and service is quashed.
King v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 784264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
An appellate court is without jurisdiction to review an order entered by the trial court after the date of filing the notice of appeal.
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, — S.Ct. —-, 2014 WL 714697 (2014).
For purposes of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, a fraudulent misrepresentation or omission is not made “in connection with” a purchase or sale of a covered security (generally, one sold on a national exchange) unless the misrepresentation is material to the decision whether to buy or not buy the covered security. A Ponzi scheme based on sale of uncovered securities that are secured by covered securities is not covered by the Act.