47 Fla. L. Weekly D1352a DOMINGO SACRAMENTO, et al., Appellants, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-1790. L.T. Case No. 19-7013. June 22, 2022. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge. Counsel: David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines); and Corredor & Husseini, Read More »
Articles
Torts — Dog bite — Action against pet grooming facility and its operator arising out of incident in which plaintiff’s dog was attacked and injured by another dog while at defendants’ facility, alleging defendants breached duty of care owed to plaintiff, as business invitee, to operate pet grooming service in manner that avoided injury to person and property — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of defendants based on statutes holding dog owner strictly liable for damages caused by dog attack — Statutes were inapplicable to business invitee’s common law negligence action against business and business owner for damages sustained at the business premises
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1355b STEVEN RAMOS, Appellant, v. PATRICIA BASTOS and RIOS PET SPA & BOARDING, INC., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-1276. L.T. Case No. 18-13493 CC. June 22, 2022. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Linda Melendez, Judge. Counsel: Gordon C. Watt, P.A., and Gordon C. Watt; Andrew M. Read More »
Wrongful death — Legal malpractice — Suicide — Dismissal — Action alleging that legal malpractice of decedent’s former attorney was proximate cause of decedent’s suicide — No error in dismissing complaint for failure to state a cause of action because counsel did not have a legal duty to prevent decedent’s suicide — While the district courts have found that medical professionals may in some circumstances have a duty to intervene if they become aware of a potentially suicidal patient, no state court has extended a similar duty to attorneys, and court declines to do so here
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1351b ANDREW ANDREASEN, etc., Appellant, v. KLEIN, GLASSER, PARK & LOWE, P.L., etc., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-1498. L.T. Case No. 19-25191. June 22, 2022. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon, Judge. Counsel: Thomas J. Gruseck (West Palm Beach), for appellant. Keller Landsberg, Read More »
Appeals — Certiorari — Discovery orders — Torts — Fall from ladder following explosion allegedly caused by defendant’s employee who, at time of incident was pumping vinegar from defendant’s tanker truck — Challenge to order requiring production of documents related to training procedures for unloading cargo, operating truck’s pumping mechanism, and addressing leaks as well as an “ISO Folder” which contained documents stamped “proprietary trade secret” and for which court’s order required the parties to sign a confidentiality agreement — Because discovery requests were reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, defendant cannot establish requisite irreparable harm and court lacks jurisdiction to review challenged order — Petition dismissed
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1313a OAKLEY TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. DWIGHT SHINAULT, Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-638. L.T. Case No. 17-17959. June 15, 2022. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge. Counsel: Alvarez, Winthrop, Thompson & Smoak, P.A., and P. Raúl Alvarez, Read More »
Contracts — Noncompete agreement — Nondisclosure agreement — Discovery — Depositions — Corporate officers — Protective order — Apex doctrine — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by denying plaintiff’s motion for a protective order seeking to preclude defendant from deposing the director of plaintiff entities — Because the apex doctrine was codified in rule 1.280(h) shortly before director’s videotaped deposition was to take place, the doctrine became a clearly established principle of law that trial court was required to follow when it ruled on plaintiff’s motion for protective order — Director’s affidavit sufficiently explained his lack of unique, personal knowledge of the issues being litigated — Although director signed a mediated settlement agreement with defendant, settlement agreement did not form the basis of plaintiff’s claims where agreement was only relevant insofar as it preserved confidentiality obligations defendant owed to plaintiff, and included a non-disparagement provision in favor of plaintiff — While defendant asserted various defenses based on release and jury waiver provisions of settlement agreement, neither party claims that agreement is ambiguous such that parol evidence is required to interpret it — Even if parol evidence were required, director is unlikely source of discoverable information since he attested that the mediation preceding settlement was handled by others — Fact that defendant had frequent interactions with director during defendant’s employment by plaintiff did not render director’s denial of unique, personal knowledge about the issues implausible where defendant did not explain how the interactions would relate in anyway to claims asserted in plaintiff’s suit — Once plaintiff established that director was an apex official and produced his affidavit, trial court was required to issue protective order unless defendant demonstrated that he had exhausted other discovery, that such discovery is inadequate, and that director has unique, personal knowledge of discoverable information
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1334a DECISIONHR USA, INC., a Florida corporation, and DECISIONHR HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioners, v. WILLIAM MILLS, III, a natural person, and COVERAGEHR, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Respondents. 2nd District. Case No. 2D21-3468. June 17, 2022. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Read More »