1) JFK Health & Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Analie Tours, Inc., 06-CV-2868 NG CLP, 2008 WL 819066 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
OVERVIEW: Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of associational jurisdiction granted on the basis that Plaintiffs could not meet amount in controversy requirement where the Plaintiffs attempted to recover all money paid to Defendants even though the Defendants partially performed. The Plaintiffs did not have associational standing because they were seeking monetary damages that would have required a showing of individualized proof.
2) Monahan v. Pena, 08-CV-2258 JFB ARL, 2009 WL 2579085 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).
OVERVIEW: Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of diversity subject matter jurisdiction granted based on the non-aggregation principle because the investors individually failed to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy and could not fall within the common fund exception as there were individual rights to the funds in the account they were seeking to recover and any recovery could be allocated to the plaintiffs based upon their individual claims.
3) In re Edgewater By The Bay, LLLP, 419 B.R. 511 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009).
OVERVIEW: Counterclaimants could not state a claim under FDUTPA: 1) by alleging the Plaintiff violated a provision of law in allowing its attorney to also be its escrow agent; 2) by including the Florida’s Homeowners’ Construction Recovery Fund disclosure in its contract even though it did not apply to the contract between the parties; 3) by requiring the developers to retain an independent escrow agent. The court found that violations of Florida Statutes and the Code of Miami-Dade County are not necessarily violations that give rise to a FDUTPA claim.
4) Panam Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Pena, 08-CV-2258 JFB ARL, 2011 WL 3423338 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).
OVERVIEW: Under New York’s choice-of-law doctrine, which dictates that the law of the state of incorporation applies to a veil-piercing analysis, the court applied Panamanian law and found that defendants satisfied their burden of demonstrating that veil-piercing was unavailable by showing that the Defendants did not use the corporation for the sole purpose of perpetrating fraud or violating the law.
5) Bacchus v. Denver Dist. Court, No. 11-CV-03406-RBJ, 2012 WL 3403608 (D. Colo. 2012).
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff brought action against a Denver District court for failing to accommodate her disability. The court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the state court did not adjudicate Plaintiff’s ADA claim. The court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff failed to adequately allege facts showing that Defendant failed to make a reasonable accommodation of her disability and failed to demonstrate that the relief she sought would remedy Defendant’s alleged wrongs.
6) In Re: Ocean View Produce, Inc., Respondent, PACA Docket No. D-08-0064, 2009 WL 218027 (Agric. Dec. Jan. 15, 2009).
OVERVIEW: The ALJ concluded that Respondent’s failure to make full payment promptly with respect to the transactions alleged in the Complaint constitutes willful, flagrant, and repeated violations of PACA, where Respondent knew or should have known that it could not make prompt payment for the large amount of perishables it ordered, yet continued to make purchases over a lengthy period of time, and could not pay produce suppliers.
Florida District Courts of Appeal
1) Puig v. Florida Engineers Mgmt. Corp., 939 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
OVERVIEW: The Court reversed a final order of the Florida Engineers Management Corporation, which rejected an administrative law judge’s recommendation that an administrative complaint against Puig be dismissed. The court recommended that the Administrative Law Judge’s order be approved, in which the hearing officer, in its role as finder of fact and based on competent substantial evidence, determined that Puig did not do anything intended to aid or assist in the unlicensed practice of engineering.
2) E. Qualcom Corp. v. Global Commerce Ctr. Ass’n, Inc., 59 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
OVERVIEW: The Fourth DCA overturned the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants finding that a unit owner’s testimony as to the lost profits caused by the Association’s failure to timely repair the roof was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the unit’s owner’s lost profits. In addition, Qualcom’s production of pictures of its damaged equipment paired with invoices, receipts, and other proof of payment was sufficient to avoid summary judgment on its claim for damages to personal property.
3) Carillon S. Joint Venture, LLC v. Diamond, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D987 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
OVERVIEW: Respondent’s writ of mandamus denied because the trial court’s sua sponte order granting a mistrial could not be considered a ministerial act, but was a discretionary act. The possibility of having to try a case twice does not constitute irreparable harm.
4) Regions Financial Corp. v. Mercenari, 78 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2011).
OVERVIEW: The Third DCA affirmed the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to transfer venue. A plaintiff’s choice of venue is presumptively correct and defendant failed to carry its burden to show that holding a trial in the county in which it was failed would work a substantial inconvenience to it.
United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
1) Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. S. Florida Water Mgmt. Dist., 559 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2009).
OVERVIEW: Indian tribe and environmental organization sued the regional water management district, alleging a violation of the Clean Water Act. The Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the district court’s stay order because the stay did not present an important issue as required by the collateral order doctrine.
2) Friends of Everglades v. S. Florida Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2009).
OVERVIEW: The issue in this case was whether moving an existing pollutant from one navigable water body to another is an addition to navigable waters of that pollutant, such that an NPDES permit would be required. Concluding that the statutory language of the Clean Water Act that required permits, that ‘any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source,’ is ambiguous, the Court decided the unitary water theory is a reasonable, permissible construction.
3) In re USA, 624 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2010).
OVERVIEW: The Court emphasized, based on separation of powers principles, that in order for a high-ranking official to be compelled by the judiciary to appear in a judicial proceeding, there must be a showing of special need. The Tribe and Friends of Everglades failed to establish a special need for the Administrator for Water to be substituted for the Assistant Administrator.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
4) Florida Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 52 (S.D. Fla. 2005).
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff environmental groups challenged the issuance of a permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Palm Beach County allowing the dredging and filling of jurisdictional wetlands for the development of Palm Beach County Biotechnology Research Park. After granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, the Court determined that the appropriate remedy was to set aside the Corps’ permit, remand the matter to the Corps, and enjoin the County from further construction on the site pending adequate environmental review.
5) Florida Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 401 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2005).
OVERVIEW: Defendants sought to clarify and modify the Court’s prior injunction filed November 18, 2005 to allow the construction of additional roads and infrastructure across the site to ensure that the three buildings they were permitted to construct were usable after they had been built. The Court denied the request for modification of the injunction.
6) Palm Beach County Envtl. Coal. v. Florida, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
OVERVIEW: Environmental coalition brought action against state and county officials, seeking temporary injunctive relief against the construction of a power plant. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunctive relief because Plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and failed to show that there was an actual emergency at hand that entitled them to injunctive relief.
7) Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States, 04-21448-CIV, 2010 WL 3860712 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
OVERVIEW: The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to substitute the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water for the EPA Administrator, where the Administrator was a named party to the action and had been directly ordered by the Court to attend the hearing concerning compliance with an Order specifically directed to the EPA Director and Defendants.