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, […]
Articles
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, […]
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; […]
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Action against insurer by assignees and medical providers — Res judicata — Collateral estoppel — “Identity of the parties” element of collateral estoppel is not met where the assignees and medical providers are identical but the insured or assignor is different
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1314a UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MILLENNIUM RADIOLOGY, LLC, d/b/a MILLENNIUM OPEN MRI, a/a/o Jean DeVaughn, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-2093. L.T. Case No. 13-136 SP. June 15, 2022. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Ayana Harris, Judge. Counsel: Michael J. Neimand, for appellant. David B. […]
Employer-employee relations — Employment discrimination — Ongoing verbal abuse due to sexual orientation — Retaliation — County ordinance — Trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice a former employee’s complaint against former employer alleging sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation in violation of Miami-Dade County Code on ground that ordinance did not establish a private cause of action — Plain language of amended Code provision clearly creates private cause of action — Code provision is not analogous to section 760.11(4), as it is not meant as an administrative relief scheme but as a guideline for a private individual seeking to enforce employment discrimination provisions of the Code after the Commission on Human Rights has failed to provide relief — Discussion of prior precedent in light of amendments to Code provisions
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1307a ANDRE WHITE, Appellant, v. AUTOZONE INVESTMENT CORPORATION, d/b/a AUTOZONE AUTO PARTS, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-598. L.T. Case No. 20-19278. June 15, 2022. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge. Counsel: Law Offices of Levy & Levy, P.A., and Chad E. Levy (Sunrise); Diane […]