Volume XVIII, Issue 26
June 28, 2025
Manuel Farach
City of Parker v. Wilson, Case No. 1D2024-0199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025).
https://1dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2453839/opinion/Opinion_2024-0199.pdf
Dedication of a park to the public, which dedication has been accepted by local
government, cannot be revised through a “Clarifying Declaration” that is signed by only
4 of the original 7 declarants.
Mickler v. Iizuka, Case No. 5D2024-1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).
https://5dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2453961/opinion/Opinion_2024-1243.pdf
Filing of a complaint asserting claims that are clearly subject to a release has been held
to be sanctionable conduct.
Volume XVIII, Issue 24
June 14, 2025
Jekyll Island-State Park Authority v. Polygroup Macau Limited, Case No. 23-11415 (11th Cir. 2025).
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202311415.pdf
Even if the foreign company does not directly sell products in the United States, a federal district court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign intellectual property holding company under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) which has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of United States law to protect its intellectual property portfolio.
Kennedy v. Slockett, Case No. 2D2024-1681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).
https://2dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2453190/opinion/Opinion_2024-1681.pdf
An employment agreement between professionals which contains a “broad” arbitration provision does not encompass intentional torts such as battery.
King & Spalding LLP v. The Residences at the Bath Club Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 3D25-0961 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
Motions to withdraw as counsel should be routinely granted except in extraordinary circumstances (e.g., on the eve of or during trial) and the denial of such a motion warrants certiorari relief.
Isbell v. Bohrer, Case No. 4D2023-3114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
https://4dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2453228/opinion/Opinion_2023-3114.pdf
The following attorney’s fee provision is not broad enough to entitle a movant to recover “fees for litigating fees” under Waverly at Las Olas Condo. Ass’n v. Waverly Las Olas, LLC, 88 So. 3d 386, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012):
Section 7. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Should any litigation or legal proceeding be required by either party for the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs which they incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement.
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Avigliano, Case No. 4D2024-1471 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
https://4dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2453230/opinion/Opinion_2024-1471.pdf
A foreclosure plaintiff that presents some evidence of the amount of damages under the loan has provided sufficient prima facie evidence of damages to preclude an involuntary dismissal, even if the evidence of damages was based on inadmissible hearsay that was erroneously admitted at trial.
Volume XVIII, Issue 23
June 7, 2025
By Manuel Farach
Blom Bank SAL v. Honickman, Case No. 23–1259 (2025).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1259_9p6b.pdf
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is a “catch-all” provision but is to be read narrowly and
should be used only in extraordinary circumstances.
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., Case No. 23–1201 (2025).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1201_8759.pdf
Personal jurisdiction exists under §1330(b) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of
1976 whenever there exists an exception to sovereign immunity and the defendant
foreign government has been properly served; minimum contacts under International
Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, and its progeny need not be satisfied.
Sweet Additions Ingredient Processors, LLC v. Meelunie America, Inc., Case No.
24-10335 (11th Cir. 2025).
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202410335.pdf
A fixed-price sales contract which contains a clause which states “liability on any claim
for loss or damage . . . shall not exceed the price allowable to such goods” on the
contract “or part thereof involved in the claim” and also disclaims all liability for “special
consequential, incidental or exemplary damages including, but not limited to, loss of
profits or revenue . . . [and the] cost of substitute products” does not limit direct
damages but bars consequential forms of damages arising from the same breach.
Infinity Auto Insurance Company v. Miami Open MRI, LLC, Case No. 3D24-0945
(Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2452848/opinion/Opinion_2024-0945.pdf
When read as a whole, a proposal for settlement which reserves the right to defend
against claims in the future unrelated to the settling case is not ambiguous.
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Cohen, Case No. 4D2023-2793 (Fla. 4th DCA
2025).
https://4dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2452842/opinion/Opinion_2023-2793.pdf
A lender is not required to prove both that it is the owner and holder of a note at the time
foreclosure is initiated, one is sufficient for standing purposes.
13110 Investments LLC v. Dumervile, Case No. 4D2024-0530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
https://4dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2452847/opinion/Opinion_2024-0530.pdf
A notary may witness and notarize their own signature.