50 Fla. L. Weekly D1193b CORY MCKINNEY, Appellant, v. MICAH GRAHAM, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D2023-2745. L.T. Case No. 2013-CA-012202-O. May 30, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Emerson R. Thompson, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Peter D. Webster, of Carlton Fields, Tallahassee, and Paul L. Nettleton, Jeffrey A. Cohen, and Katarina Dobsinska, Read More »
Articles
Torts — Vicarious liability — Negligent hiring, training, and supervision — Directed verdict — Action brought against hotel employee and his corporate employer stemming from injuries plaintiff suffered during a physical altercation with employee — Trial court erred by denying employer’s motion for directed verdict on claims that employer was vicariously liable and negligent in its hiring and supervision of employee — Employer could not be vicariously liable for plaintiff’s injuries where jury specifically found that employee was not negligent — Evidence was insufficient to show that employer had negligently trained or supervised employee’s managers where plaintiff presented no evidence that any actions taken by either manager were done outside the course and scope of their respective employment — While an action can be brought directly against an employee’s supervisor for his or her negligent supervision or negligent training of the subordinate employee even when the subordinate employee’s actions were within the scope of employment, this principal is inapposite in instance case because plaintiff never sued managers in their individual capacity
50 Fla. L. Weekly D1189a MICHAEL GABOR, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. REMINGTON LODGING AND HOSPITALITY, LLC, d/b/a/ One Ocean Resort and Spa, and ROBERT J. HENDERSON, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. 5th District. Case No. 5D2023-3183. L.T. Case No. 2016-CA-006690. May 30, 2025. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. G. L. Feltel, Jr., Judge. Counsel: John S. Mills Read More »
Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Unpaid wages — Inextricably intertwined claims — Contracts — Torts — Counterclaimant who prevailed on breach of contract claim seeking unpaid wages was entitled, under provisions of section 448.08, to award of fees incurred in obtaining unpaid wages — However, trial court erred in including in the award all fees incurred by counterclaimant in defending other counts of complaint based on finding that all counts arose from common core of facts and were inextricably intertwined — Discussion of interrelatedness of claims in context of attorney’s fees award — Remand for new fee hearing at which counterclaimant will have burden to prove which attorney’s fees were allocable to unpaid wages counterclaim and to separate out any fees which were not based upon interrelated legal theories — Retainer agreement — Argument that claimed attorney’s fees should be limited to amount of retainer agreement, raised for first time on appeal, does not apply to instant case in which parties agreed to pay their counsel a specific fee no matter what and to pay all fees if they prevailed
50 Fla. L. Weekly D1155a CARL DOMINO, INC. and CARL DOMINO, individually, Appellants, v. MICHAEL DIXON, CAROL DIXON, and YOUR PLANNING PARTNER, LLC, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D2024-0646. May 21, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Reid P. Scott, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2017-CA-004091-XXXX-MB. Counsel: Carl Read More »
Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Judgment obtained at least 25% less than offer — Calculation — Trial court erred by awarding defendant its attorney’s fees and costs based on a rejected proposal for settlement where trial court failed to include plaintiff’s pre-offer attorney’s fees and costs in its calculation when determining whether the judgment obtained was 25% less than defendant’s offer — Discussion of White v. Steak & Ale of Fla., Inc. — A “judgment obtained” under section 768.79(7) includes the net judgment for damages and any attorneys’ fees and taxable costs that could have been included in a final judgment if such final judgment was entered on the date of the offer — Because plaintiff sought statutory attorney’s fees and costs as part of its claim against defendant, plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and fees were required to be included to derive threshold “judgment obtained” — Application of the formula does not turn on whether the offer includes attorney’s fees and costs
50 Fla. L. Weekly D1129a SFR SERVICES, LLC a/a/o JOHN & ROSE ZAPISEK, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES o/b/o AVATAR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D2023-1050. L.T. Case No. 19-CA-001630. May 16, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Leigh Frizzell Hayes, Judge. Counsel: Melissa A. Read More »
Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Timeliness of motion — Trial court erred by awarding plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs as prevailing party where motion for fees was filed more than thirty days after rendition of underlying final judgment — Discussion of rule 1.525 and the supreme court’s decision in AmerUs Life Insurance Co. v. Lait — Exception to rule 1.525’s thirty-day deadline set forth in AmerUs was not applicable to instant case where, although final judgment expressly stated that plaintiffs were the prevailing party and quoted a contractual provision stating that the prevailing party “shall be entitled to recover attorney’s fees,” it was not clear from face of judgment that trial court had determined that plaintiffs were entitled to recover attorney’s fees and that its reservation of jurisdiction was only to determine the amount of fees — Judgment’s reservation of jurisdiction to “consider an award” does not clearly indicate that the only thing left to do is determine an amount — While it may be inferred that trial court made a determination of entitlement to fees based on the language of the judgment as a whole, appellate court declines to expand AmerUs exception to encompass a judgment that does not explicitly and unequivocally find one side liable for the other’s attorney’s fees and costs
50 Fla. L. Weekly D1023f BRADLEY BERG; TINA BERG; BTJJ HOLDINGS, LLC; and BTJJ CONSERVATION CORP. n/k/a RBC CONSERVATION CORP., Appellants, v. MICHAEL SCURRY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2024-0845. May 7, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Cynthia J. Newton, Judge. Counsel: Gregory T. Elliott of Elliott – Berger, P.A., Seminole, Read More »