Value of Restrictive Covenant when Moving for Permanent Injunction

A recent case demonstrates the value of a restrictive covenant. In The Residences at the Bath Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Bath Club Entertainment, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D221a (Fla. 3d DCA), the parties entered into a settlement agreement and a proceeding relative to the breach and enforcement of the settlement occurred. The trial court entered an order enforcing the settlement agreement based on a specific paragraph in the agreement. Ultimately, the facts, for purposes of this posting, are not as significant as the appellate court’s discussion in obtaining a permanent injunction when dealing with a restrictive covenant. In particular, when...

25 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Challenging Standard for Granting Directed Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence, Trial Perspectives

If there is a jury trial, there will be a motion for directed verdict. But, the standard for granting a motion for directed verdict is challenging; if the directed verdict is granted, an appeal will be filed arguing the trial court’s error in granting the directed verdict. James v. City of Tampa, 2016 WL 3201221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) was a personal injury action. The issue at trial was whether the plaintiff’s injuries from a car accident constituted a permanent injury (as this issue impacted damages to be awarded to the injured plaintiff). At the conclusion of all of the evidence, the...

02 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Civil Theft has a Rigorous Burden of Proof

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Florida has a cause of action known as civil theft. It is a statutory cause of action under Florida Statute s. 772.11 (referenced at the bottom of this article) that, just like criminal theft, requires a party to prove criminal intent with clear and convincing evidence. See Bailey v. Covington, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D776a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“To establish a claim for civil theft, a party must prove 1) that a conversion has taken place and 2) that the accused party acted with criminal intent. Such intent must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”) (internal citation omitted). See also United...

29 April

0 Comments

Sticky

A New Trial is Not Automatically Warranted when Jury Renders what a Plaintiff Perceives to be an Inadequate Jury Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

Juries do not always award huge jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in personal injury actions. Sure, sometimes they definitely do. But it is also true that sometimes they do not. Juries can find that the (i) defendant was not liable, (ii) the plaintiff was comparatively liable, or (iii) that the plaintiff's damages were relatively minor. As to the latter two points, this was the issue in Black v. Cohen, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D903e (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), involving an automobile accident, where the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on an inadequate jury verdict....