50 Fla. L. Weekly D919b ALEXANDER HALIKOYTAKIS, Petitioner, v. FUTURE MOTION, INC., Respondent. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2024-1499. April 23, 2025. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Helene L. Daniel, Judge. Counsel: Eitan J. Goldrosen of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner. Michael R. Holt and Ligianette Cordova Read More »
Articles
Torts — Automobile accident — Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Claims arising out of series of rear-end collisions purportedly triggered by third driver — Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of third driver — Where third driver filed supporting affidavit refuting her negligence and placing all blame for crash on a phantom driver, it was up to insurer, other codefendants, or plaintiff to raise material facts to avoid summary judgment — Scant negative testimony of witness that “I did not see a phantom vehicle” could not overcome unequivocal positive statement of third driver that she was struck by a phantom vehicle
50 Fla. L. Weekly D935a ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. DAVID W. SCHROEDER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gail S. Schnell, and SUSANA ALCALA, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D2023-3363. April 23, 2025. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County. Gregory S. Parker, Judge. Counsel: Jennifer L. Aybar Read More »
Torts — Automobile accident — Substitution of parties — Death of party — Timeliness of motion — Trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiffs’ case after they failed to timely substitute a party for the defendant who had died — Because a motion to substitute party was not filed within ninety days of suggestion of death, rule 1.260 mandated dismissal — Fact that plaintiffs were proceeding pro se did not relax requirements of the rule
50 Fla. L. Weekly D892c SANELA HAMZA and JASMIN JELEC, Parents and Natural Guardians of A.J., L.J., and S.J., Children, Appellants, v. LINDA MCLEMORE, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D2024-1315. L.T. Case No. 2021-CA-002344. April 17, 2025. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Katie L. Dearing, Judge. Counsel: Sanela Hamza and Jasmin Read More »
Torts — Medical malpractice — Jurisdiction — Non-residents — Action brought against non-resident doctors that treated and evaluated patient in New York before referring patient to a Florida provider after patient had moved — No error in dismissing action for lack of personal jurisdiction — Causing injury in state — Service activities — Non-resident doctors were not subject to personal jurisdiction under section 48.193(1)(a)6.a. — Doctors’ alleged acts of referring patient to an in-state treatment center, performing tests and rendering reports that were used by in-state providers, and sending medical bills to patient while she was in Florida did not establish that doctors were engaged in service activities within the state — Fact that record of service activity that occurred in a foreign state entered Florida does not retroactively change the location where the service activity occurred — Similarly, sending a bill to a person in Florida for a service activity that occurred in a foreign state does not change location where service activity occurred — Doctors’ act of “contacting” in-state providers about doctors’ diagnosis and opinions did not constitute service activity within state — An unspecified form of contact initiated outside of Florida to someone located in Florida through an unspecified medium does not constitute a “service activity within” the state under section 48.193(1)(a)6.a. — Additionally, plaintiff failed to allege a temporal connection between patient’s injuries and the “service activities” of the doctors as required by the statute — Use of products, materials, or things in state — Doctors were not subject to personal jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a)6.b. where plaintiff failed to allege that injuries occurred “at or about the time” that any products, materials, or things processed, serviced, or manufactured by the defendant were used in Florida — Even if temporal connection had been alleged, complaint failed to allege that products, materials, or things processed, serviced, or manufactured by the doctors were used in Florida — While a written report is a “thing,” the writing of a report does not constitute “processing,” “servicing,” or “manufacturing” — Conflict certified — Tortious act in state — Doctors were not subject to personal jurisdiction under section 48.193(1)(a)2. based on fact that their alleged medical malpractice in New York continued to injure patient when she moved to Florida — Court rejects argument that a person who commits a tortious act outside Florida that causes injury in Florida has “committed a tortious act within” Florida under section 48.193(1)(a)2. — Statute necessarily focuses on where a defendant committed an act, not where the injuries from that act may be felt — Doctors did not commit tortious acts within state by directing communications into Florida where complaint does not alleged that doctors sent or otherwise directed their reports into Florida — Doctors’ “contact” with Florida healthcare providers did not subject doctors to trial court’s jurisdiction where complaint did not allege that doctors committed any tortious act during that unspecified form of contact
50 Fla. L. Weekly D894a Torts — Medical malpractice — Jurisdiction — Non-residents — Action brought against non-resident doctors that treated and evaluated patient in New York before referring patient to a Florida provider after patient had moved — No error in dismissing action for lack of personal jurisdiction — Causing injury in state — Read More »
Civil procedure — Discovery — Text messages — Non-parties — Attorney-client privilege — Work product — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by categorically denying non-party’s privilege assertions and ordering production of disputed Slack messages without first conducting an in-camera inspection — Messaging communications between a new company’s owner and CEO about legal advice previously received by the owner may be privileged — Furthermore, where communications concern a rival company that has a long-running dispute with the new company’s owner, and has recently sued and settled with new company’s CEO, those communications may be protected work product if they “respond to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim in the future,” even if made months before any such claim ripens into litigation — Availability of attorney-client privilege did not depend on the participation of an attorney in every communication for which privilege was claimed — Applicability of work product doctrine did not depend on the participation of an attorney in every communication or document for which protection was claimed or the commencement of anticipated litigation within a certain period of time
50 Fla. L. Weekly D901c BREANDEN BENESCHOTT, Appellant, v. TOPTAL, LLC, TASO DU VAL, and DENIS GROSZ, Appellees. 6th District. Case Nos. 6D2023-3769, 6D2023-3789 (Consolidated). L.T. Case No. 2023-CA-002001-0001-XX. April 17, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County. Ramiro Mañalich, Judge. Counsel: Laura Renstrom, Michael M. Gropper and Michael B. Decembrino, Jr., of Read More »