47 Fla. L. Weekly D2013b GRIFFIN WINDOWS AND DOORS, LLC, Petitioner, v. JOHN POMEROY, Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-1069. L.T. Case No. 18-8374. October 6, 2022. A Case of Original Jurisdiction — Mandamus. Counsel: Taylor Espino Vega, PLLC, and Daniel R. Vega and Vanessa A. Van Cleaf, for petitioner. Montalto Legal, LLC, and Stephen Read More »
Articles
Attorney’s fees — Evidence — Written order — No abuse of discretion in awarding attorney’s fees without making specific findings regarding the reasonable amount of hours worked — Trial court was not required to reduce its considerations into written findings — Although appellees’ counsel did not keep accurate and current records of time spent on legal work for appellees, counsel did present competent substantial, evidence to support fee award
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1977a TONY LAVON WAITES, Appellant, v. FRANK MIDDLETON, SR., and ROSA M. MIDDLETON, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D21-3476. September 28, 2022. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Thomas V. Dannheisser, Judge. Counsel: Michael R. Rollo of Michael R. Rollo, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant. Artice L. McGraw of Read More »
Torts — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Appeals — Timeliness — Motion to dismiss appeal of order granting plaintiff leave to add claims for punitive damages against defendants is denied — Trial court’s granting of motion to clarify and subsequent issuance of amended order, which subjected appellant to additional claim for punitive damages for the first time, restarted clock for jurisdictional purposes because the addition of appellant to the punitive damages order was a material change
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1976a DAVID MARK VAN DYKE, Appellant, v. DOMINIQUE BRIANNE TILLMAN and CENTRAL FLORIDA CONTRACTORS SERVICE, LLC, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D22-1018. September 28, 2022. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Peter K. Sieg, Judge. Counsel: Todd L. Wallen of Wallen Kelley, Coral Gables, for Appellant. Chad A. Read More »
Insurance — Bad faith — Discovery — Right to privacy — Attorney-client privilege — Work product — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by compelling insurer to produce employee personnel files without conducting an in-camera review — While the plaintiff’s discovery requests in this case stop short of seeking wholesale production of the personnel files, they still encompass numerous categories of potentially irrelevant information which, if disclosed, could jeopardize the employees’ constitutional privacy rights — Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by compelling production of documents insurer claimed were work product and privileged information without conducting an in-camera review or even addressing privilege claims — Insurer did not waive privilege by failing to file a privilege log where insurer’s non-privilege objections to requested discovery had not yet been resolved
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1979a ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, CHRISTINE BROGAN, GEORGE NAFTZINGER, JOHN CONNOLLY, MICHAEL SNELL, GARY MELLINI, and EVA MC INTEE, Petitioners, v. JESSE LEE RAY, as personal representative of the Estate of Deborah L. Veilleux, deceased, Respondent. 2nd District. Case No. 2D21-2912. September 30, 2022. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Read More »
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 »