19 January

Sticky

Employer cannot Retaliate against Employee for Workers’ Compensation Claim

In prior postings, I talked about Florida’s private Whistleblower Act and Florida’s Public Whistleblower Act dealing with retaliatory terminations. Besides these whistleblower protections, there is also protection in Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law that states: 440.205 Coercion of employees.—No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of such employee’s valid claim for compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law. To support an employment retaliation claim: [A] plaintiff must prove the following three elements: 1) the plaintiff was engaged in protected activity; 2) the plaintiff was thereafter subjected by his employer to an adverse employment action; and...

30 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Must be a Meeting of the Minds for there to be a Settlement

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A settlement agreement is governed under the tenets of contract law – there needs to be a meeting of the minds for there to be a settlement. Ideally, you want this meeting of the minds to be memorialized in writing in a settlement agreement. However, what if it is not memorialized in a written settlement agreement? As is true of contracts generally, a settlement agreement is formed “only when one party makes an offer and another party accepts it.” An acceptance sufficient to create an enforceable agreement “must be (1) absolute and unconditional; (2) identical with the terms of the offer;...

22 September

0 Comments

Sticky

Improperly Moving to Set Aside the Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480 governs motions for directed verdict and motions to set aside the verdict and to enter judgment pursuant to the directed verdict: (a) Effect. A party who moves for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by the adverse party may offer evidence in the event the motion is denied without having reserved the right to do so and to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. The denial of a motion for a directed verdict shall not operate to discharge the jury. A motion for a directed verdict shall...

01 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Two Proposal for Settlement Considerations

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A proposal for settlement is a vehicle used to create an argument for the recovery of attorney’s fees from the date the proposal is served on forward if the opposing party does not accept the proposal within 30 days. In certain circumstances, such as when there is there is no basis to recover attorney’s fees, it can be a useful vehicle to create an argument to recover attorney's fees. There are also strategic reasons to serve a proposal for settlement at a certain point in time in the litigation. There are definitely strategic issues that must be considered when serving...

16 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Damages Caused by Wrongful Recording of Lis Pendens (Not Founded on Instrument or Statute)

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

What are the damages caused by the WRONGFUL recording of a lis pendens, and I am referring to a lis pendens NOT founded on a duly recorded instrument (e.g., not founded on a mortgage) or a statute (e.g., not founded on a construction or assessment lien)? These are damages that should be accounted for in a lis pendens bond. The recent opinion in LB Judgment Holdings, LLC v. Boschetti, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D693a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), relying on Haisfeld v. ACP Florida Holdings, Inc., 629 So.2s 963 (Fla. 4thDCA 1993), explained: Haisfield looks back at losses that were actually suffered by a property...

17 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Considerations when Multiple Proposals for Settlement are Served on Separate Defendants

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

I have previously discussed proposals for settlement / offers of judgment (“proposals for settlement”). A proposal for settlement is a statutory vehicle pursuant to both Florida Statute s. 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 to create an argument to recover attorney’s fees based on the judgment amount. (See this article for more on proposals for settlement). For a plaintiff (party seeking affirmative relief), the plaintiff must obtain a judgment 25% greater than the proposal for settlement amount. When there are multiple defendants, the plaintiff needs to serve a proposal for settlement on each defendant. In Cassedy, Jr. v. Wood,44 Fla.L.Weekly...

02 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Proposals for Settlement ONLY Apply to Claims for Monetary Relief

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

While there are times I will serve a proposal for settlement to create an argument to recover attorney’s fees, I always tell clients proposals for settlement create nothing more than an argument. In other words, you cannot bank on actually recovering attorney’s fees because of conflicting case law or case law that finds reasons to invalidate a proposal for settlement. Thus, when I serve a proposal for settlement, I make sure the client’s expectations are tempered. But, when I receive a proposal for settlement on behalf of a client, I make sure the client appreciates that they can be liable for...

28 May

0 Comments

Sticky

General Understanding of Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

There are two similarly related legal doctrines known as collateral estoppel and res judicata. The doctrines are designed to prevent a party from re-litigating either a prior issue (collateral estoppel) or claim (res judicata). These doctrines are generally discussed below regarding the elements (in the case of collateral estoppel) or the identities (in the case of res judicata) required to support their application. Keep in mind that these are nuanced legal doctrines and a party should consult with counsel to determine the application of these doctrines which are typically raised as an affirmative defense in a lawsuit. Collateral Estoppel =...

11 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Moving for an Involuntary Dismissal in a Nonjury Bench Trial

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Burden of Proof, Standard of Review

Analogous to a motion for directed verdict in a jury trial, in a nonjury bench trial decided by a judge, a defendant can move for an involuntary dismissal after the plaintiff (party introducing evidence in favor of affirmative relief) puts on his/her case. This is a common motion after the plaintiff in a bench trial puts on his/her case. No different than moving for a directed verdict in a jury trial, it is a motion that carries a high burden since every doubt and inference is given in favor of the plaintiff. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b) authorizes motions for...

06 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Admitting a Business Record Under the Hearsay Exception

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

If you have perused this blog, then you know if there is a new case discussing the business records exception to the hearsay rule, I am writing about it. The reason being is that it comes up in many business disputes. Lately, there has been a trend where this business records exception comes up in mortgage foreclosure cases where the borrower argues that the lender failed to properly introduce key evidence (such as payment histories) under the business records exception. As a result, the evidence was inadmissible hearsay warranting a reversal of a foreclosure judgment. The recent opinion in Evans v....

Search