By Manny Farach
Week ending May 25, 2024
Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, Case No . 23–3 (2023).
A court must decide which of two conflicting arbitration provisions in two contracts – one
sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration and the other either explicitly or implicitly
sending arbitrability disputes to the courts – controls.
Lee v. U.S. Bank National Association, Case No. 21-13887 (11th Cir. 2024).
The antimodification provision of Chapter 11, 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b)(5), requires three
things to be applied: a security must be in real property, the real property is the only
security for the debt, and the real property is the debtor’s principal property; there is no
requirement the property be exclusively the debtor’s principal residence.
In Re: Amendments To Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Case No. SC2023-0962
(Fla. 2024).
The Florida Supreme Court adopts certain provisions of the Workgroup on Improved
Resolution of Civil Cases and amends and adopts rules, including that Rule 1.200
(Case Management; Pretrial Procedure) assigns cases to either complex, general, or
streamlined tracks and details actions within the assignment; Rule 1.201 (Complex
Litigation) now refers back to Rule 1.200 on how to designate or redesignate a case as
“complex” and specifies that motions for continuance are governed by Rule 1.460; Rule
1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery) adopts the initial disclosure scheme of
Federal Rule 26(a)(1), now requires proportionality in discovery, and new (g) institutes
ongoing requirement to supplement or correct discovery responses; Rule 1.440 (Setting
Action for Trial) removes the “at issue” requirement for cases to be set for trial and
requires a motion to set a case for trial, and Rule 1.460 (Motions to Continue Trial) now
states that continuances are disfavored and should rarely be granted and also allows
sanctions is there is dilatory conduct on the part of a lawyer or named party.
In Re: Amendments To Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.510 And New Florida
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.202, Case No. SC2024-0662 (Fla. 2024).
The response to a summary judgment motion is not tied to the filing date of the motion
and not the hearing date and new Rule 1.202 requires a “meet and confer” conference
on non-dispositive motions.
Real Capital Partners, LLC v. Alhambra Center International, Ltd., Case No. 3D23-
0833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
Applying the new summary judgment standard, a trial court judge can properly conclude
that a broker is not entitled to a procuring cause commission for bringing a buyer when
a different broker later brought the same buyer to seller and consummated the sale.
Week ending May 18, 2024
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association Of America, Ltd., Case No. 22-448 (2024).
The funding mechanism for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is upheld as Constitutional.
Smith v. Spizzirri, Case No. 22–1218 (2024).
The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §3, mandates that courts must stay proceedings when parties agree to arbitration, provided the party requesting the stay is not in default.
In Re: Amendments To Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061 and Form 1.983, Case No. SC2023-1092 (Fla. 2024).
The Florida Supreme Court removes appellate standards of review from Rule 1.061 and corrects a statutory citation in Form 1.983.
Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace, LLC v. Grove Bay Investment Group, LLC, Case No. 3D21-0806 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
Upon rehearing and applying the previous Rule 1.510 standard set forth in Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43, 47 (Fla. 1966), the Third District rules that vague sketches are not adequate for granting summary judgment on a contract in dispute over the scope and location of real estate improvements.
Rainess v. Jose Perez 1031 4, LLC, Case No. 3D22-1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
A tax collector fails to complete the additional searches required for a tax deed sale under Florida Statute section 197.522 when it fails to notify the owner at his New York address even though the tax collector had the owner’s New York address in its files.
5051 NW 37 Avenue Corp. v. IES Sales and Service, LLC, Case No. 3D23-1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
Florida Statute section 82.232 allows courts to extend payment dates for deposit of rent into court registries, but not retroactively after the payment deadline has passed.
Abreu v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Case No. 3D23-1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
Rule 1.540 is not designed to correct legal errors, including whether a trial court had continuing jurisdiction over a settlement agreement.
Carnevale v. Shir, Case No. 3D24-0351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
Mandamus can compel the entry of routine court orders, but cannot force a court to enter an order granting summary judgment.
Mackensen v. Trace Elements, Inc., Case No. 4D2023-1707 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024).
A joint settlement proposal is enforceable when it involves a unified claim for damages without conflict among the offerors.
South Wild Olive, LLC v. Total Maintenance Services, LLC, Case No. 5D2023-1393 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).
Florida Statute section 57.105 sanctions are justified against an unlicensed contractor who sues for breach of a construction contract, knowing it was unlicensed.
Week ending May 11, 2024
Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, Case No. 22–1078 (2024).
The Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations begins to run when a claim accrues
but also entitles a copyright owner to obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement
claim, no matter when the infringement occurred.
In Re: Amendments To Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Miscellaneous
Petition, Case No. SC2024-0030 (Fla. 2024).
The Florida Supreme Court amends Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 1-3.2
(Membership Classifications), 1-3.3 (Official Bar Name and Contact Information), 1-3.7
(Reinstatement to Membership), 1-7.3 (Membership Fees), 11-1.8 (Continuation of
Practice Program After Completion of Law School Program or Graduation), 20-3.1
(Requirements for Registration), Bylaw 2-3.10 (Meetings) and Chapter 8 (Lawyer
Referral Rule).
Desbrunes v. US Bank National Association, Case No. 4D2022-2647 (Fla. 4th DCA
2024).
Upon Appellee’s Motion For Rehearing, Or Alternatively, Motion For Rehearing En Banc
Or Certification, the Fourth District holds that property in foreclosure that was the
decedent’s homestead does not need to have not have a legal representative of the
decedent, e.g., a personal representative, be appointed because homestead passes
outside any administration of the decedent’s estate.
Week ending May 4, 2024
In Re: Amendments To Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, Case No.
SC2023-0438 (Fla. 2024).
Rue 9.130(a)(3)(H) (interlocutory review of nonfinal orders that confirm, deny, modify,
correct, or vacate arbitration orders) is moved to subsection (a)(3)(I).
Hamilton v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Case No. 3D23-1934 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2024).
A violation of Florida Statute section 90.613 (portions of a document that a witness
relies on to refresh his or her recollection during his or her deposition testimony must be
produced to the opposing party notwithstanding claims of privilege) is remediable by
certiorari.
Roque v. Swezy, Case No. 3D23-1836 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
Requiring the imaging and production of the entire contents of a party’s cellphone
cannot be justified merely because it is the quickest and most efficient method to obtain
the information sought; a trial court directing the disclosure of private information must
balance the right of privacy against the need for the discovery, and the burden is on the
party seeking disclosure to establish that the invasion of privacy is warranted and the
method requested is the least intrusive means to obtain the discovery sought.
Calixte v. Coastal Building Contractors, LLC, Case No. 4D2024-012 (Fla. 4th DCA
2024).
A party cannot employ Florida Statute section 713.24 (lienor must show cause in 20
days why lien should not be discharged) if the lien was not proper in the first place, e.g.,
the lienor had not complied with the Notice to Owner requirements.
Hernando County v. Hernando County Fair Association, Inc., Case No. 5D2023-
1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).
The Continuing Breach Doctrine applies to leasehold and sale of real property
transactions, and if applied, extends the statute of limitations.