THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Arbitration -- Enforceability of arbitration clause -- Non-signatory -- Trial court did not err in compelling arbitration of plaintiff's claims pursuant to two arbitration agreements to which only plaintiff was a party -- While it is generally for courts to decide whether a non-signatory can compel a signatory to arbitration, trial court correctly deferred to the arbitrator on the question of whether non-signatory defendants may enforce the arbitration agreement where agreements at issue incorporated by reference the rules and procedures outlined by the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Attorney's fees -- Hearings -- Experts -- Necessity -- Extensive discussion of state's history of attorney's fees and the imposition of evidentiary hearing and expert witness requirements -- A trial court need not always conduct an evidentiary hearing or receive expert testimony regarding reasonableness of fees prior to entering an award of attorney's fees pursuant to a statute, rule, or contractual provision -- There is no legal authority mandating either of those requirements, nor are there strong logic or policy grounds for imposing them -- Since trial judges are experts on the reasonableness of hourly rates and number of hours expended, there is simply no need for parties to call expert witnesses to testify to what trial judges themselves are well-qualified to determine -- Furthermore, the testimony of attorneys involved in a case can also constitute legally sufficient evidence regarding the reasonableness of attorneys' fees -- Evidentiary hearings are not required when there is no material factual dispute between the parties concerning a request for attorneys' fees other than whether the hourly rates of the attorneys for whom fees are sought are reasonable and whether the number of hours expended by those attorneys on particular litigation tasks were reasonable -- Conflict certified
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Property damage -- Covered perils -- Additional coverages -- Collapse -- Exclusions -- Appeals -- Interpretation of policy -- Preservation of issue -- Appeal from final judgment in favor of policyholder in which trial court held, in reliance on holding by Fifth District in Kings Ridge Community Ass'n v. Sagamore Insurance Co., that “additional collapse coverage” provided by policy could not be modified or qualified in any manner by other listed exclusions except those specifically contained within the “additional collapse” coverage provision -- Final judgment affirmed based solely on insurer's failure to preserve the specific arguments it advances to challenge trial court's interpretation of policy -- Discussion of preservation requirements
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Florida Bar -- Rules -- Amendment -- Professional expectations -- Billing -- Diligent representation until formal dissolution of lawyer-client relationship -- Timely service on opposing parties -- Preventing deponent from answering questions -- Avoidance of discovery requests -- Abstention from rude, disruptive, and disrespectful behavior
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Appellate Procedure -- Amendments -- Definitions -- Form of Documents -- Record -- Filing; service of copies; computation of time
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Malicious prosecution -- Conspiracy -- Dismissal -- Action asserting claims against defendant condominium association based on previous unsuccessful lawsuit defendant had filed against plaintiffs over unpaid assessments -- No error in dismissing action with prejudice based on determination that plaintiffs were not the prevailing party in prior litigation because, although plaintiffs prevailed on the single claim brought against them, defendant prevailed on plaintiffs' six counterclaims -- Court rejects argument that trial court was not permitted to consider the full record from defendant's prior action because only certain pleadings were mentioned within four corners of complaint -- Trial court was permitted to consider whole judicial record of the underlying prior action, including the plaintiffs' failed counterclaims, where prior action itself was referenced and discussed in the complaint and plaintiffs had attached the complaint, answer, affirmative defenses, and the final judgment -- Prevailing party -- Plaintiffs' counterclaims in prior action were not irrelevant in determining whether prior proceeding had been terminated in plaintiffs' favor -- For a claim of malicious prosecution to lie, a plaintiff must show a favorable termination of all claims in an underlying action, not merely a favorable outcome on the claim that the plaintiff alleges was maliciously prosecuted -- Because claim for malicious prosecution was properly dismissed, plaintiffs cannot sustain a claim for conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution -- Dismissal with prejudice was proper where any amendment to complaint would be futile
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Premises liability -- Damages -- Causation -- Evidence -- Experts -- Undisclosed opinion -- Prejudice -- Action alleging that plaintiff suffered nerve damage in her ankle after tripping on crack in pavement in defendant's parking lot -- Defendant's non-testifying expert opining that nerve damage was caused by a preexisting condition for first time during second deposition after plaintiff had produced new medical records on last day of discovery period -- Trial court did not err by excluding opinion of defendant's expert based on fact that new opinion was not disclosed by the deadline set forth in the case management order -- Where a party fails to disclose an opinion of its expert witness by the deadline set forth in the applicable case management order, the trial court is permitted to strictly enforce the case management order and exclude the undisclosed opinion without considering whether the other party would be prejudiced by the introduction of the undisclosed opinion -- Conflict certified -- While plaintiff produced new medical records after the parties' deadline to disclose changes in their experts' opinions, defendant did not file a motion in the trial court to extend the deadline -- Had defendant raised issue below, trial court could have considered it and extended the deadline or taken other appropriate action -- Plaintiff was not required to contemporaneously object to expert's new opinion during deposition -- Plaintiff was permitted to object for first time at trial to any part of the deposition for any reason that would require the exclusion of the testimony if expert were present and testifying
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Premises liability -- Slip and fall -- Transitory foreign substance -- Failure to maintain premises -- Failure to warn of hazardous condition -- Knowledge of dangerous condition -- Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claims for injuries sustained when she slipped on a gel pack in an aisle near meat department of defendant's store and caught herself on her cart -- To survive motion for summary judgment, plaintiff was required to point to record evidence from which reasonable trier of fact could find that defendant or its employees had either actual or constructive knowledge, within the meaning of section 768.0755, of ruptured gel pack that caused her fall -- Actual knowledge -- Testimony that defendant's employees would typically place gel packs in a row tucked on underside of equipment to soak up condensation and that gel packs could rupture if stepped on was not sufficient to suggest actual knowledge, and plaintiff did not point to any evidence demonstrating awareness of dangerous condition by defendant or its employees -- Constructive knowledge -- Evidence submitted by plaintiff in opposition to summary judgment was not sufficient to create factual dispute as to whether dangerous condition occurred with regularity and was foreseeable -- Plaintiff's assertion that defendant had a policy to place warning signs when using gel packs and that this policy was evidence of a foreseeable recurring hazard was insufficient to establish that dangerous condition occurred with sufficient regularity to impute constructive knowledge
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Unclaimed property -- False claims -- Corporations -- Mergers -- Dividends -- Limitation of actions -- Action brought by plaintiffs purporting to represent state's interest in unclaimed property alleging that defendant corporation violated Florida False Claims Act by holding unclaimed funds consisting of merger considerations and dividends from merger of defendant and another corporate entity in which plaintiffs held stock -- Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant based on determination that plaintiffs had no right to any property under merged entity's certificate of incorporation because statute of limitations had expired -- Trial court correctly determined that action was time barred where a Delaware court had previously determined that action was time barred after plaintiffs attempted to sue defendant in Delaware in an attempt to recover under merged entity's certificate of incorporation -- Plaintiffs may not argue on appeal that they are entitled to funds under merger agreement where plaintiffs had argued below that merger agreement was irrelevant -- Alternatively, trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant based on determination that property at issue was not presumed unclaimed -- While stock or other equity interest in a business association is presumed unclaimed three years after various triggering events, the running of that three-year period ceases if there is written or recorded communication between the parties or their agents regarding the interest or dividend -- Because plaintiffs had engaged in a series of communications with defendant seeking payment of dividends and distributions up until the Delaware litigation commenced, any money defendant may have owed to plaintiffs was never presumed unclaimed -- As money was not presumed unclaimed, there was no obligation for defendant to file a report on unclaimed property or deliver money to state -- Without an obligation to deliver money to the state, there could be no violation of False Claims Act
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Workers' compensation -- Medical benefits -- Attendant care -- Travel -- Medical necessity -- Claimant who requires around-the-clock attendant care and durable medical equipment as a result of work-related accident -- Judge of compensation claims erred by awarding claimant additional medical benefits to take a trip to visit out-of-state family after JCC determined that trip was not medically necessary -- Transportation other than to a doctor reflects on quality of life rather than medical necessity and legislature has not included such quality-of-life travel within the ambit of medical benefits available under workers' compensation law
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Wrongful death -- Negligence -- Premises liability -- Supermarkets -- Criminal attack by third party -- Duty to protect -- Zone of risk -- Foreseeability -- Random shooting -- Trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of defendant in action arising out of incident in which two people were tragically shot and killed inside store -- Zone of risk was effectively limited to fact that defendant placed its customers within a confined space, and defendant had duty to guard against criminal attacks by third party only insofar as those attacks were reasonably foreseeable -- Defendant had no legal duty to anticipate shooter's criminal activity where shooter was stranger to both defendant and the victims and where the attack occurred precipitously -- Fact that defendant adopted active shooter training for its employees did not create foreseeable zone of risk, but merely showed that defendant was aware of the possibility of an active shooter event somewhere at one of its stores across the country at some point -- Nationwide statistics of shooting did not establish that it was objectively reasonable for defendant to expect specific danger of random act of gun violence at the store at which shooting occurred -- Discussion of negligence and duty generally -- Clarification of viability and proper application of Relyea v. State and Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc., Allen v. Babrab, Inc., and Stevens v. Jefferson -- Relyea's holding requiring a showing of “prior, similar criminal acts committed upon invitees” is not inconsistent with subsequent supreme court opinions holding that constructive or actual knowledge may be based on prior, similar acts and not exclusively on knowledge of a particular attacker's violent propensity -- Further, Relyea is distinguishable because, in relevant part, it addresses foreseeability within duty element of negligence and not as it relates or potentially relates to causation
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Criminal law -- Indictment -- Amendment -- Defects -- Waiver -- It was error to allow state to orally amend grand jury indictment charging defendant with first-degree murder to instead charge defendant with accessory after the fact to first-degree murder -- Once returned by a grand jury, an indictment may not be amended to charge an additional, similar, or different offense -- Court rejects argument that purported oral amendment of indictment was fundamental error depriving trial court of subject matter jurisdiction -- While state's intended oral amendment of indictment was plainly impermissible under settled law, it did not deprive trial court of jurisdiction -- Issue is one of due process, not jurisdiction -- Defendant waived any due process objection to that patently defective process by joining the state in urging the trial court to accept the procedure to facilitate a favorable plea agreement -- Defendant may not now complain of that in which she so willingly participated -- Conflict certified
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Plea -- Withdrawal -- Post-appeal resentencing -- A defendant whose sentence is vacated on direct appeal may not withdraw his underlying plea for good cause prior to imposition of new sentence on remand -- Rule 3.170(f)'s good-cause standard does not apply during post-appeal resentencing proceedings -- Allowing a defendant to withdraw plea during post-appeal resentencing would require courts to infer an independent rules-based exception to longstanding principles of finality, scope of remand, and conviction validity
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Written or electronic threat -- Act of terrorism -- True threat -- Charge stemming from a video defendant posted on social media and his personal website in which defendant made statements about targeting a nearby middle school while holding firearms -- Trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal arguing that state failed to show that defendant made a threat or that he intended any threat he made to be a true threat -- Defendant's statements that he would fire as many rounds as he could into a real, nearby school building and “take up arms to attack the State,” along with his display of a fully operational semi-automatic rifle, demonstrated that defendant made a threat to conduct an act of terrorism -- Mens rea -- Question of whether defendant intended to make a true threat is for the jury and not a matter for judgment of acquittal -- Evidence was sufficient for jury to reasonably infer that defendant intended statements in video to be a true threat -- Court rejects argument that defendant did not intend the video to be a true threat because defendant placed disclaimers in video stating that he would not hurt anyone and that his video was art and work of fiction -- Mere disclaimers will not shield a person from prosecution
VIEW OPINION (login required)