In the recent case of Davis v. Bailynson, the Fourth DCA held that an attorney alone could be held liable for violation of Florida Statute 57.105 for making a single baseless allegation. The attorney, on behalf of his client, Kenneth Bailynson, sued the defendants-appellants for breach of fiduciary duties. . .
Read More
On March 6, 2019, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in a suit between auto dealerships, in a case styled, Stewart Agency, Inc. v. Arrigo Enterprises, Inc., No. 4D18-813, __ So. 3d __. There, the plaintiff, Stewart Agency, Inc., sued Arrigo Enterprises, Inc. and Arrigo Ft. Pierce, LLC, alleging that Stewart, which refused to resell used Toyotas with unremediated Takata airbags, had been damaged by the alleged practice of its competitor, Arrigo, of reselling Toyotas with unremediated airbags.
Read MoreIn a March 6, 2019 decision in Bellezza v. Menendez, No. 4D17-3277, __ So. 3d __, the Fourth DCA reversed a trial court judgment, where the trial court had permitted introduction into evidence of the plaintiff attorney’s relationship with her client’s treating physicians. Among other things, the Fourth DCA held that it was error for the trial court to have compelled the plaintiff’s attorney of record to testify at trial, even where the plaintiff’s attorney was the person with most knowledge of the firm’s records.
Read MoreOn February 27, 2019, the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed the scope of trade secret discovery in Lake Worth Surgical Center, Inc. v. Gates, No. 4D18-2774, __ So. 3d __. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages arising from a traffic accident. The defendant sought discovery from the surgical center where the plaintiff had received treatment. That information included two examples of reimbursement rates. . .
Read MoreDaniel published an article on Harvey v. GEICO Ins. Co., a critical decision in bad faith insurance law, in the 2018-2019 winter edition of the Advocate, the official publication of the South Palm Beach County Bar Association. It is reprinted here:
On September 20, the Florida Supreme Court issued its 4-3 decision in Harvey v. GEICO Ins. Co., Case No. SC17-85, 2018 WL 4496566, and again addressed the scope of bad faith insurance law in Florida.
Read MoreRecently, a new client of DBR Law, P.A. approached the firm complaining that his former employer terminated him improperly, and owed him a severance payment. Small claims such as this are heart-rending for individuals who have been mistreated and who are in desperate need of the money, especially while unemployed.
Read MoreUnder Florida law, process against a limited liability company is served by serving its registered agent. F.S. §48.062(1). Some companies use a private mailbox as the address for the registered agent. Under Florida law, when someone commences a lawsuit, the summons and complaint may be served at the private mailbox, but only in limited circumstances, one of which is that the only address for the company that is discoverable through public records is the mailbox address.
Read MoreLitigants in state actions commonly take advantage of liberal rules governing amendment of pleadings to add claims well into the life of a case. Sometimes, they do so even after the limitations period for bringing a claim has been exhausted. In such a case, litigants argue that the proposed new claim “relates back” to the commencement of the other claims, and that if the limitations period governing the new claim had not already run when the action was commenced, then the court should allow it to be interposed.
Read MoreIt is common for litigants to allege violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, colloquially referred to as “FDUTPA,” to seek damages for unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. See Section 501.204 of the Florida Statutes.
[click title to learn more]
Read More