09 November

Sticky

Standard of Review for a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (“JNOV”)

A trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the (jury’s) verdict, which is also known as a “JNOV.” The verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court entered the JNOV for the defendant prompting the plaintiff to appeal. Here is important legal analysis when appealing a JNOV: A JNOV order is reviewed de novo. Kopel v. Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812, 819 (Fla. 2017). In reviewing a JNOV, the appellate court must “view all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant, and, in the face of evidence, which is at odds or contradictory, all conflicts must...

18 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Five-Year Statute of Limitation Applies to Reformation of Written Instrument Claim

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

Claims have a statute of limitations. Claims outside the statute of limitations are time barred. In an interesting case dealing with the statute of limitations, an association sued homeowners to try to reform a declaration that was recorded fifteen years earlier. The declaration excluded the residential phases theses homes were situated in. While numerous homeowners consented to being governed by the declaration, two homeowners did not. The association wanted the court to reform the declaration so that these homes would be bound by the declaration. The homeowners argued that the association’s reformation claim was barred by the five-year statute of limitations...

03 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Res Judicata and 4 Requirements that Must be Demonstrated

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

A recent case discusses the doctrine of res judicata after the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice based on this doctrine. “The doctrine of res judicata provides that a judgment on the merits in an earlier suit bars a later suit on the same cause of action between the same parties or others in privity with those parties.” Res judicata bars a subsequent lawsuit when the following identities exist in both the original lawsuit and the subsequent lawsuit: “(1) identity of the thing being sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties; and...

19 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Mandatory Forum Selection Provisions

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

When reviewing a contract, check to see if there is a forum selection provision. This provision will dictate where a dispute shall or may be brought. Forum selection provisions are construed as either mandatory forum selection provisions (the dispute has to be brought in this exclusive forum) or permissive forum selection provisions (the dispute may be brought in this forum, but other forums would work too). Be mindful of forum selection provisions because they will come into play if a dispute unfolds. “Permissive [forum selection] clauses constitute nothing more than a consent to jurisdiction and venue in the named forum and...

23 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Directed Verdict Granted where No View of Evidence Could Support Jury Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

In this blog posting, I discussed a case where the appellate reversed a final judgment in favor of a plaintiff on a breach of contract claim and remanded for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the defendant. The appellate court found that the trial court should have entered defendant’s motion for directed verdict on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. There are three interesting points regarding a motion for directed verdict. One, a motion for directed verdict is reviewed under a de novo standard of appellate review. Two: A motion for directed verdict should be granted only where no view of the...

28 November

0 Comments

Sticky

To Pierce Corporate Veil, there Needs to be Sufficient Findings of Improper Conduct

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

A trial court’s decision whether to pierce the corporate veil is reviewed under a de novo standard of appellate review because it presents a pure issue of law. Flooring Depot FTL, Inc. v. Wurtzebach, 2021 WL 5348903, *2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The recent decision in Flooring Depot FTL demonstrating that piercing a corporate veil is not so easy, and really, far from it. In this case, homeowners did not receive approximate 1,912 square feet of purchased flooring. The homeowners sued the flooring company for not providing all of the flooring they paid for and claimed fraud. The homeowners attempted to...

31 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Dismissal of Complaint (Action under Florida’s Public Whistleblower Act) for Failure to State Cause of Action

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

A trial court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action is reviewed under a de novo standard. Henley v. City of North Miami, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D2296c (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). An example of a trial court dismissing a complaint for the failure of the plaintiff to state a cause of action can be found in Henley where the trial court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff’s claim under Florida’s Public Whistleblower Act per Florida Statute s. 112.3187. In this case, a public employee (plaintiff) alleged that he was terminated after sending emails and texts to the City...

29 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Establishing Punitive Damages Against a Corporation

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

“In Florida, there are two methods for establishing a claim for punitive damages against a corporation: ‘(1) vicarious liability based on the willful and malicious actions of an employee with a finding of independent negligent conduct by the corporation; or (2) direct liability based on the willful and malicious actions of managing agents of the corporation.’" Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Electronic Funds Transfer Corp., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1824e (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) In Wells Fargo Bank, a defendant bank was being sued for punitive damages. At the conclusion of the evidence, the defendant bank moved for a directed verdict as to the...

10 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Properly Alleging a Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim under Florida Law

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

Is there a cause of action for trade secret misappropriation? Why, why, yes there is under Florida’s Uniform Trade Secret Act, known as “FUTSA”, included in Florida Statute s. 688.001 en seq. FUTSA defines the terms “trade secret” and “misappropriation” as not everything a person claims to be a trade secret is, indeed, a trade secret. Understanding the statutory definitions to “trade secret” and “misappropriation” are important if a party is looking to pursue a claim against another under FUTSA. To successfully state a cause of action under FUTSA, a plaintiff must [identify the trade secrets with reasonable particularity and] allege...

12 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Party Recovering Judgment Entitled to Recoverable Costs

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

Florida Statute s. 57.041(1) provides, “The party recovering judgment shall recover all his or her legal costs and charges which shall be included in the judgment; but this section does not apply to executors or administrators in actions when they are not liable for costs.” Thus, in most cases, when it comes to the recovery of recoverable costs, if you obtain a judgment against the other party, you are entitled to such costs under section 57.041. There is no analysis as to which party truly prevailed in the case (which is oftentimes the analysis when dealing with attorney's fees). See...

de novo Tag