Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

Articles

by

Torts — Jurisdiction — Nonresidents — Tortious act in state — Trial court erred in denying motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by defendant, an interactive social networking platform, in an action seeking to hold it liable for failing to suspend a user who cloned plaintiff’s marketplace vendor account, solicited orders for plaintiff’s product, and refused to deliver goods as promised — General jurisdiction — Plaintiff abandoned any assertion of general jurisdiction by failing to file a counter-affidavit or provide any sworn proof to prove jurisdiction in response to defendant’s legally sufficient affidavit — Specific jurisdiction — Complaint did not sufficiently allege tort claim against interactive social networking platform — Instead, plaintiff alleged equitable claims seeking to suspend unknown user’s fraudulent account and obtain documents that would enable plaintiff to identify the user who cloned vendor’s account — Moreover, there were no extraneous factual allegations in complaint to support contention that inaction of social networking platform rose to level of tacit complicity in the commission of any of the tort claims advanced against the unknown user or any unpled torts — Further, there is no precedent to support proposition that platform’s purported violation of its own policies and procedures is a sufficient substitute for alleging that the platform engaged in a tort in the state — Finally, “effects test” cannot be used to circumvent language of statute, as this requires a tort that was intentional, aimed at the forum state, and caused harm that defendant should have anticipated would be suffered in the forum state

49 Fla. L. Weekly D715b FACEBOOK, LLC, Appellant, v. GRIND HARD HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D23-0948. L.T. Case No. 22-17030. April 3, 2024. An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge. Counsel: Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Dwayne Robinson, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Robbie […]

by

Attorney’s fees — Appellate — Sanctions — Claim or defense not supported by material facts or applicable law — Allocation of fees — Relief from judgment — Motion for appellate attorney’s fees under section 57.105 filed in prior appeal before counsel had entered appearance — Trial court erred in denying motion for relief from judgment which awarded attorney’s fees against appellate counsel — Judgment awarding fees against appellate counsel was void for lack of due process where neither the motion for appellate attorney’s fees filed in the prior appeal when party was pro se nor the notices for the fee hearing thereafter filed in the trial court gave any indication that an award of fees was being sought against appellate counsel, and order granting motion for fees in prior appeal contained no finding of entitlement to recover fees against appellate counsel — Furthermore, nothing in record indicates compliance with the safe harbor provision mandated by section 57.105(4) prior to asking the trial court to award fees against counsel

49 Fla. L. Weekly D700a ANTHONY J. FANTAUZZI, Appellant, v. JOHN P. FLECK, JR., and JAMES C. DAY, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D23-1390. April 3, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Charles Sniffen, Judge. Counsel: Nicole Deese Newlon and Bradley F. Kinni of Johnson, Newlon & DeCort, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. […]

by

Torts — Premises liability — Negligent security — Duty — Commercial lease — Action brought against property owner and entity that managed the property which was leased to an adult entertainment club where plaintiff was shot — Trial court erred by denying defendants’ motion for directed verdict on allegations of breach of duty for failure to provide a reasonably safe premises based on determination that defendants had a non-delegable duty to club’s business invitees — Evidence showed that neither defendant had sufficient control over the premises to establish a duty of care where defendants had no control over general operation of club’s business practices and were not involved with security — While lease provision granted property manager the right to enter the premises and operate the club upon the lessee’s failure to continually conduct adult entertainment, defendants were never in a position to exercise that right — Existence of a right to take control of premises in event of default is not the same as actually exercising that control — Defendants’ ability to enter premises to inspect property and make repairs does not constitute sufficient control for purposes of establishing liability where any control defendants retained to enter premises was completely unrelated to injuries plaintiff suffered — Court rejects argument that lease provision requiring tenant to abide by the law should be treated as evidence of a landlord’s control of the premises for purposes of imposing liability

49 Fla. L. Weekly D756b KEITH R.E. JOHNSON and KREJ LEASING, INC., Appellants, v. AKEEFE GARRETT, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-1205. L.T. Case No. 2015-001414-CA. April 4, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Chad K. Alvaro and Vincent Falcone, III, Judges. Counsel: Michael M. Brownlee, of The Brownlee Law Firm, P.A., […]

by

Civil procedure — Relief from judgment — Sanctions — Denial of motions — Judicial error does not provide basis for relief under rule 1.540(b) — Record does not show that trial court abused its discretion by denying motion for sanctions

49 Fla. L. Weekly D755a RUBEN SANTOS CASADO, Appellant, v. JOSEPH R. DOHER, TIMOTHY ST. GORDON AND JOSEPH CORBIN MCGINLEY, Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D23-2302. L.T. Case No. 2022-CC-006451-A. April 5, 2024. On appeal from the County Court for Lake County. Carla R. Pepperman, Judge. Counsel: Ruben Santos Casado, Clermont, pro se. Tyler E. […]

by

Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Damages — Setoff — Deductible — Trial court erred by failing to apply hurricane deductible post-verdict to offset jury’s determination of damages where jury was never asked to determine deductible’s applicability — Furthermore, trial court’s response to insurer’s reference to deductible at charge conference tacitly acknowledged that deductible would be applied post verdict — Any suggestion that jury might have taken deductible into consideration in awarding damages is pure speculation

49 Fla. L. Weekly D685a CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MARIE AVRIL and CLIFFORD ROMAIN, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D2022-0360. March 27, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Sandra Perlman, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19-009207. Counsel: Kathryn L. Ender of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Miami, for […]

The owner of this website has made a commitment to accessibility and inclusion, please report any problems that you encounter using the contact form on this website. This site uses the WP ADA Compliance Check plugin to enhance accessibility.