12 May

Sticky

Injunctive Relief + Attorney’s Fees Awarded in Favor of an Owner and Against Her Association

Here is a case that may give associations some degree of consternation. I think it should because it supports permanent injunctive relief against an association to comply with its governing documents when managing or maintaining a surface water management system / stormwater management system. This case, discussed below, would extend beyond a surface water management system to any covenant in the governing documents. In Coconut Creek Homeowner's Association, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1045a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a homeowner sued her homeowner's association for failing to manage the association's surface water management system. The homeowner sued the association...

05 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Mid-litigation Monetary Settlement with Co-Defendant

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

I recently discussed a doctrine that applies in negligence cases known as the undertaker's doctrine. Some may also call this the no good deed goes unpunished doctrine. Just kidding; but, this undertaker's doctrine maintains that if you undertake a service, i.e., a good deed, you must do so with reasonable care as you assumed a duty to prevent the beneficiary of that service from harm. For instance, a tenant sued the owner of the condominium he (and his family) was renting and his real estate agent for water intrusion and mold problems in the unit. The tenant claimed the real...

30 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Florida’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act cannot be used to Restrict Competition

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act is contained in Florida Statutes Chapter 688. This Act authorizes courts to take reasonable steps to preserve the confidentiality of trade secrets including ordering injunctive relief to prevent a party (such as a former employee) from misappropriating trade secrets. Norton v. American LED Technology, Inc., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D951a (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). However, as confirmed by the First District in Norton, Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act cannot be used as a sword to restrict or stifle direct competition. In other words, it is improper for a trial court to issue a temporary injunction restricting direct...

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....

22 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Summary Judgment Entered in Favor of Defendant on Equitable Subrogation Claim

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

I recently wrote an article how there are times when a party is seeking reimbursement for solely economic losses, their best recourse is an equitable subrogation claim. The article also discusses the application of equitable subrogation dealing with an actual fact pattern. Equitable subrogation, you say? In an equitable subrogation claim, a party pays for damages (or a debt) it believes were caused by another party. The party then pursues reimbursement against the party it believes primarily responsible for the damages or debt. No one wants to pay for damages or a debt it believes were caused by a third...

13 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Attorney’s Fee Arrangements can be Creative or Innovative

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Generally, people do not like to spend money on lawyers. There are certainly exceptions where clients value the relationship with a lawyer knowing that the services provided and advice given is worth the fees. Ideally, this should be the sentiment from anyone that feels they need a lawyer, even if the advice paid for is to steer you in a more focused direction based on the pros/cons of the claims and issues you are dealing with. But, money is important and decisions cannot be made in a vacuum without understanding associated costs. I get that not everyone wants to have to...

08 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Directed Verdict Warranted if Jury Needs to Stack Inferences to Determine Negligence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Burden of Proof, Standard of Review

If you have read prior articles, you know what a motion for directed verdict is and that it is routinely moved for in jury trials, as it should be. It is also not a motion commonly granted. But, this does not mean there are no appellate rights if a court denies a motion for directed verdict. A denial of a trial court’s motion for directed verdict is reviewed under a de novo standard of appellate review. An example can be found in the slip-and-fall case, Publix Supermarkets v. Bellaiche, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D673a (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), where an appellate...

31 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Forum Selection / Venue Provisions in Contracts are Enforceable

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

If you have a dispute, one of the first considerations should be “where do I sue?” If the dispute may arise out of or relate to a contract, you want to look at your contract. Many contracts contain forum selection or venue provisions identifying the exclusive venue governing your dispute. For instance, the provision may say something to the effect, “The exclusive venue for any dispute arising out of or relating to this contract shall be in Miami-Dade County Florida.” This means that if you plan to sue you need to do so in a court located in Miami-Dade County,...

25 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Set-Off when Entering into Settlements in Multi-Party Disputes

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Lawsuits oftentimes involve multiple parties. This could include multiple defendants or third-party defendants, whatever the case may be. During the course of the dispute, there are avenues for settlement. With a multi-party dispute, sometimes the stars are aligned where a favorable global settlement works out. Sometimes, a party needs to settle with some, but not all, of the defendants. This means the plaintiff will need to try the case against the remaining defendants (or parties). The remaining defendants, obviously, want the settlements with the settling defendants to be used to set-off any damages or judgment entered against them. For example,...

18 March

0 Comments

Sticky

The Not Widely Known Harris Act: Protection of Private Property Rights

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

There is a Florida statute not universally known called the “Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act” and oftentimes called the "Harris Act" for ease of reference. The Harris Act is embodied in Florida Statute s. 70.001 (found here) and it deals with the protection of private property rights. More specifically, it provides a private cause of action when the existing use (or vested rights) of property is inordinately burdened by the Florida government (including agencies thereof). The Harris Act has some teeth in certain situations, as demonstrated below in a case example, and is a good...