Real Property and Business Litigation Report
Volume VII, Issue 24
June 14, 2014
Monique A. Levi & Associates, Inc. v. SPCP Group V, LLC, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 2587758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
The payment of a broker’s commission is not always a material term upon which there must be agreement for a contract to be formed, but is a material term under these circumstances when terms of contract formation are not clear.
Matte v. Caplan, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 2587815 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Strict compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 2.516 is required, otherwise the particular document is deemed not filed. A Fla. Stat. § 57.105 motion will be denied if “(1) the e-mail attached the motion in Word format instead of a PDF or link; (2) the subject line failed to state ‘SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT’ and contained a number that does not correlate with the circuit court case number; and (3) the body of the e-mail failed to contain any of the required information listed in subsection (ii), but simply said, ‘See attached motion.’”
Losner v. Australian of Palm Beach Condominium Ass’n, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 2589046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
While an association claim of lien under Fla. Stat. § 718.116 (5) (b) “secures all unpaid assessments that are due and that may accrue after the claim of lien is recorded and through the entry of final judgment,” the statute does not cover separate assessments for other purposes that are assessed after suit is filed.
Carter v. Mendez, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 2589166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Even when dismissing sua sponte, a court must give notice before dismissing a claim under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070 (j) for failure to serve within 120 days.
CVE Master Management Co., Inc. v. Ventnor “B” Condominium Ass’n, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 2589214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Damages for a class representative does not need to be the same or other class members so long as the “typicality” (that the representative’s claims are typical of the members’ claims) requirement is met.
Patel v. Nandigam, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 2596181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
A proposal for settlement under Florida Statute § 768.79 that offers to settle all legal and equitable claims is ineffective as a proposal for settlement cannot encompass equitable claims. Notwithstanding an ineffective proposal for settlement, a party may still be awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 44.103 (6) (a) for requesting a trial de novo after arbitration and not recovering in excess of the arbitration award.
Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Diamond, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 2599682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
The three-pronged test of “unfairness” for purposes of Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice claims requires the injury to the consumer 1) be substantial, 2) not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition, and 3) an injury the consumer could not himself have reasonably avoided.
Sunshine Gasoline Distributors, Inc. v. Biscayne Enterprises, Inc., — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 2599857(Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
Upon rehearing, the Third District clarifies that the duty of good faith and fair dealing serves to protect the reasonable contract expectations of the parties when there is a reasonable range of choices but is not applicable when the choice is “binary,” i.e., an answer that is either “yes” or “no.”
Wilkerson v. Johnson, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 2561414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
A trial court must state the reasons why it believes a certain number of attorney hours to be reasonable for a fee award, not just state why the claimed amount is not reasonable. Under Fla. Stat. § 57.0541, a prevailing party must be awarded “all” of his legal costs.
Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., — S.Ct. —-, 2014 WL 2675854 (2014).
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq., does not exempt a foreign government from post-judgment discovery in aid of execution that is otherwise valid and permissible.
POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., — S.Ct. —-, 2014 WL 2608859 (2014).
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) does not preclude a private party from bringing a Lanham Act claim challenging as misleading a food label that is regulated by the FDCA.
Clark v. Rameker, — S.Ct. —-, 2014 WL 2608860 (2014).
Funds held in bankrupt debtor’s inherited retirement account are not exempt from claims of creditors under 11 U.S.C.A. § 522(b) (3) (C).
Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, — S.Ct. —-, 2014 WL 2560461 (2014).
A bankruptcy court may try “non-core” bankruptcy claims so long as it submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court to be reviewed de novo.