Articles

by

Contracts — Trade secrets — Limited liability company sued foreign corporation alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under Georgia law and breach of global settlement agreement which provided that company and its affiliates would be exclusive distributors of flooring resin and that defendant should not sell the resin without company’s written permission — Injunctions — District court erred on remand in including a permanent injunction barring defendant from using trade secret at issue where prior appellate decision unambiguously determined that the “permanent” injunction the district court had entered was, in fact, preliminary, and necessarily dissolved when it was not included in court’s final judgment, and that no permanent injunction had been entered against defendant because the district court did not include a permanent injunction in its original final judgment — District court mistakenly believed that the entry of an injunction was required by prior appellate mandate; it provided no basis for amending its original final judgment four years later pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6); and it did not make requisite findings pursuant to Rule 65 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — District court could not simply “reenter” a permanent injunction without first making the appropriate Rule 65 findings — Attorney’s fees — District court abused discretion when on remand it awarded plaintiff nearly the full amount of attorney’s fees it had sought, even after appellate court had reversed significant portions of the relief plaintiff had been previously awarded — District court committed legal error under Georgia law and abused its discretion by failing to determine what portion of the attorney’s fees incurred were fairly attributable to the successful breach of contract claim as opposed to the unsuccessful misappropriation claim — On remand, district court must apportion the attorney’s fees between the two claims based on plaintiff’s specific and detailed billing records or conclude, based on the evidence, that it would be impracticable in whole or in part to separate the legal work performed on the various claims — District court erred by awarding attorney’s fees to defendant for its successful appeal, even though defendant won substantial relief from its appeal, because defendant was not the “prevailing party” on appeal under the global settlement agreement where some relief was imposed against it — Defendant could not be considered a prevailing party under Georgia law, because plaintiff was awarded nominal damages on its contract claim — Reassignment of case — Reassignment of case to different judge on remand is not warranted where there is no reason to believe trial judge would have difficulty setting aside his previous views and findings and complying with appellate mandate, and where district court’s comments do not undermine appearance of justice

29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C1640a ACRYLICON USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. SILIKAL GMBH & CO., a foreign corporation, et al, Defendants, SILIKAL GMBH, a foreign company, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee. 11th Circuit. Case No. 21-12853. August 29, 2022. Appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. Read More »

by

Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Argument that proposal did not comport with requirements of rule 1.442 was not preserved for review where argument was not raised in timely manner — It was not an abuse of discretion for trial court to deny motion for reconsideration which raised for the first time an issue that could have been, but was not, raised in pre-hearing filing or at hearing on entitlement to fees

47 Fla. L. Weekly D1899b CHRIS THOMPSON, P.A. a/a/o ELMUDE CADAU, Appellant, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case Nos. 4D21-1820 and 4D21-2310. September 14, 2022. Consolidated appeals from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Sandra Bosso-Pardo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018SC011039XXXXMB. Counsel: Douglas H. Stein of Douglas H. Read More »

by

Appeals — Certiorari — Discovery orders — Spoliation of evidence — Sanctions — Challenge to trial court’s adoption of special master’s report and recommendation on imposition of sanctions for defendants’ hindering and delaying discovery, including finding that defendants were aware of their duty to preserve evidence that was crucial to plaintiff’s prima facie case but destroyed certain records in whole or in part with intent to deprive plaintiff of the information; and recommendation that the trial court presume that lost information was unfavorable to defendants and instruct jury that it must presume that missing information was unfavorable to defendants — Petition for writ of certiorari denied based on petitioners’ failure to establish irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on appeal — Instructing jury that it must presume that unproduced material was unfavorable to defendants did not preclude defendants from presenting material evidence and argument against the presumption or cause injury that cannot be remedied on appeal — Trial court’s ratification and acceptance of special magistrate’s fees and costs recommendation did not amount to irreparable injury

47 Fla. L. Weekly D1875a SEAWAY BILTMORE, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. GRACE ABUCHAIBE, Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-674. L.T. Case No. 17-2962. September 14, 2022. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Jackson Lewis P.C. and Pedro J. Torres-Díaz and Shayla Read More »

by

Civil procedure — Default — Vacation — Service of process — Defects — Constructive service by publication was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over defendant in action seeking money judgment for breach of contract and unjust enrichment — Waiver — Fact that defendant may have been evading personal service and might have had actual knowledge of action against him was legally irrelevant in this context — Service of process and resulting default were void and “constitutionally deficient”

47 Fla. L. Weekly D1854a ROGER F. QUISENBERRY, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS M. BATES, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D20-2252. September 7, 2022. Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carol-Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE18-016637. Counsel: Andrew M. Schwartz of Andrew M. Schwartz, P.A., Boca Raton, Read More »

by

Insurance — Coverage — Partial summary judgment — Appeals — Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review partial summary judgment order which only resolved a declaratory judgment count while leaving insureds’ claims for fraud in the inducement and breach of contract unresolved — Appeal is premature because the cause of action disposed of by the partial summary judgment could not be maintained independently of the other remaining causes of action; all claims were between the same parties; and the factual underpinning for the claim seeking declaratory relief overlaps extensively, if not entirely, with the facts underlying the breach of contract claim, rendering the claims interrelated

47 Fla. L. Weekly D1838a HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PATRICK FRASER and ALICE JACOBS, Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-0866. L.T. Case No. 18-8930. September 7, 2022. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge. Counsel: Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Mark D. Tinker (Tampa), Read More »