Adalberto Jose Jordan

In Gray v. Collection Information Bureau, Inc., plaintiff Gina Gray sued the defendant under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and accepted its July 2011 settlement offer of $1,001 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees. After acceptance, the defendant refused to pay until Gray provided her taxpayer identification number so it could issue a required IRS Form 1099 for the payment, which federal tax regulations mandate for amounts over $600; Gray declined to supply the number. The district court denied her motion to enforce the settlement agreement, reasoning that compelling payment without the TIN would force the defendant to violate federal tax law by failing to issue the form, and alternatively that the motion failed to include a required memorandum of law under local rules.

taxesprocedure

This case involves motion picture studios suing Hotfile Corp., a Panamanian company operating the file-hosting website hotfile.com, and its operator Anton Titov for copyright infringement. The plaintiffs alleged that Hotfile's business model, which pays users to upload popular files, offers premium memberships for faster downloads, and profits from high-traffic links, encourages and facilitates the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted films. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissing Count I (direct infringement) without prejudice for failing to meet pleading standards but allowing Count II (secondary infringement claims including inducement, contributory, and vicarious infringement) to proceed. The core reasoning was that the complaint sufficiently alleged Hotfile's knowledge of widespread infringement, its ability to control and prevent it through technical means, its financial incentives tied to infringing activity, and Titov's personal role in designing and implementing the business practices.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Maria Leonor Rios alleged that defendant Bakalar & Associates, a debt collector, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, by sending a letter attempting to collect a consumer debt that had been discharged in bankruptcy. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the Bankruptcy Code precludes such FDCPA claims based on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff could proceed with her claim. It reasoned that the Seventh Circuit's decision in Randolph v. IMBS was persuasive, that the FDCPA and Bankruptcy Code are not in irreconcilable conflict, and that implied repeals of statutes are disfavored, with no indication that Congress intended the Bankruptcy Code to substitute for the FDCPA.

business & regulatory

The case involved a Florida condominium association suing two insurance companies for breach of contract, alleging failure to provide coverage for property damage from Hurricane Wilma under policies issued in 2005. After the defendants removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) to join additional non-diverse defendants—the insurance agents and broker—on negligence claims for failing to secure adequate coverage, which would have destroyed diversity and required remand to state court. The district court denied the motion to join, applying the Hensgens factors and concluding that the timing of the request immediately after removal, before discovery, indicated a primary purpose of defeating federal jurisdiction, while also weighing the viability of the proposed claims and potential prejudice to the parties.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

In this case, a cruise passenger sued Royal Caribbean after suffering serious injuries during a zip-line excursion in Jamaica operated by an independent contractor, Chukka Caribbean Adventures. The plaintiff alleged negligent selection and retention of the tour operator, failure to warn of dangers, and vicarious liability based on apparent agency. The court granted Royal Caribbean's motion for summary judgment, finding that multiple pre-cruise and on-board disclaimers clearly established the excursions as independent-contractor activities for which the cruise line bore no liability. On the negligent-selection claim, the court determined there was no evidence that Royal Caribbean failed to adequately investigate Chukka or knew of any safety issues. The apparent-agency theory likewise failed because the repeated written notices prevented any reasonable belief that Chukka was acting as Royal Caribbean's agent.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Gomez v. Lozano, plaintiff Steven Gomez sued the City of Miami Beach under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Florida tort law, alleging that three city police officers used excessive force without provocation by grabbing, throwing to the ground, punching, and sitting on him, then arresting him after the incident. The district court granted in part and denied in part the city's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, dismissing the § 1983 municipal liability claim and the malicious prosecution claim without prejudice while allowing the assault and battery claim to proceed. The court reasoned that Florida's limited waiver of sovereign immunity under Fla. Stat. § 768.28 bars tort liability for acts committed with malice, which is an element of malicious prosecution; that the complaint failed to plausibly allege a city policy or custom causing the officers' conduct as required for § 1983 municipal liability; and that the assault and battery claim was not subject to the same immunity bar or pleading deficiency.

civil rightstorts & liabilitycriminal law

This ERISA case involved Anna Nebesny-Fender's challenge to American Airlines' denial of her request to re-enroll in a retiree medical prefunding plan with credit for prior enrollment years. The plan administrator had rejected the request because she failed to return a refund of contributions within 90 days of returning to work. The court, applying the arbitrary and capricious standard of review limited to the administrative record, found that the administrator's decision lacked a reasonable basis. It concluded that Nebesny-Fender had not received proper notice of the relevant plan changes or deadlines, and therefore her failure to meet the deadline did not justify forfeiture of her rights. The court accordingly ruled that the denial was arbitrary and capricious.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for water damage caused by a construction worker at a mall project. Kenneth Cole Productions and Cole South Beach sought reimbursement from their contractor Cohen, Inc. after paying for the damage, and Cohen then assigned its rights to pursue coverage from its insurer Mid-Continent Casualty Co. under a commercial general liability policy. Mid-Continent denied coverage because the underlying New York complaint alleged liability based on an unnamed joint venture between Cohen and another entity, which the policy expressly excluded. The court granted summary judgment to Mid-Continent, holding that the duty to indemnify is determined by the allegations in the complaint and that Cohen's later confession of judgment did not create coverage where none existed under the policy terms.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between a condominium association, El-Ad Enclave, and its insurer, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, over payment for property damage from Hurricane Wilma under a $1 million property casualty policy. The association claimed the policy's windstorm deductible was void or capped at $30,000 and sought partial summary judgment, while the insurer moved for summary judgment arguing that the association failed to comply with policy terms requiring document production and an examination under oath before suing. The court denied the association's motion in full and granted the insurer's motion in part, holding that the deductible was valid under Florida insurance statutes, that its interpretation applying the deductible to the policy's $44 million aggregate value was reasonable, and that remaining factual questions about compliance and loss amounts precluded full resolution.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Florida Transportation Service sued Miami-Dade County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the county's ordinance requiring a "need" determination for stevedore permits at the Port of Miami violated the dormant Commerce Clause by favoring existing local permit holders. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the permit denials in 2003, 2004, and 2005, finding the ordinance discriminatory against new entrants including out-of-state companies, and to the county on other claims that were time-barred. The reasoning centered on the permit process protecting private local interests without sufficient justification and thereby burdening interstate commerce.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Kravitz v. Evans Medical Ltd., plaintiffs Steven and Wendy Kravitz sued multiple vaccine manufacturers, alleging that a December 1996 influenza vaccine caused Mr. Kravitz to develop Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy and asserting negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium claims. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), contending that the claims could not proceed without first filing a petition in the federal Vaccine Court under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and that Florida's statutes of limitations and repose barred the suit. The court denied the motions to dismiss, reasoning that the influenza vaccine was not included in the Vaccine Injury Table until 2005, rendering Mr. Kravitz ineligible for compensation under the federal program and thus not required to exhaust that remedy, while factual disputes about the timing of the injury prevented dismissal on state-law timeliness grounds at the pleading stage.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case was an admiralty action under Rule 9(h) in which Great Lakes sought a declaratory judgment that its marine insurance policy provided no coverage for the sinking of Elaine Rosin's vessel, while Rosin filed a counterclaim asserting coverage. The court decided that the policy afforded no coverage because the vessel was operated by Rosin's son Paul, who was not a named or approved operator. The core reasoning was that the policy contained an express warranty and definition of covered persons limited to those listed and approved on the application, that maritime or New York law governed the interpretation rather than Florida law, and that the breach of the operator warranty precluded coverage under the facts presented.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether Geico's automobile insurance policy provided coverage to Edgar Baena for damages arising from a fatal car accident he caused while driving a rental Mercedes that his brother Miguel had rented from Enterprise, which expressly prohibited other drivers. Geico sought a declaratory judgment of no coverage under the policy's non-owned auto provision, while the representative of the victim's estate pursued a bad-faith claim to collect on a consent judgment. The court denied both sides' motions for summary judgment. It reasoned that the policy extends coverage if the driver had the owner's permission or a reasonable belief of such permission, but conflicting evidence created genuine issues of material fact about whether Miguel authorized Edgar to drive and whether Edgar reasonably believed Enterprise consented.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In this case, three employees sued their employers, Eastern Plastering and Eastern Drywall, under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages, with one plaintiff also bringing a retaliation claim after being fired for pursuing an FLSA complaint. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the companies did not qualify as enterprises engaged in commerce under the FLSA because they operated solely within Florida and purchased materials locally. The court granted summary judgment on the overtime claims, finding no enterprise coverage since the companies' employees did not handle goods moved in interstate commerce under Eleventh Circuit precedent requiring direct participation in interstate movement rather than local purchases of out-of-state goods. The court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, holding that the facts supported a prima facie case of protected activity followed by adverse action with a causal link. The overtime claims were dismissed, while the retaliation claim against Eastern Drywall and one individual defendant was allowed to proceed to trial.

labor & employment

The case involved Janice Langbehn and her partner Lisa Pond, a same-sex couple with jointly adopted children, who were denied information about and access to Pond after she collapsed and was treated at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami; despite Pond's power of attorney designating Langbehn as surrogate, hospital staff including doctors Zauner and Cruz allegedly withheld visitation and details for hours until Pond's death. The plaintiffs sued the Public Health Trust and the doctors for claims including negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and related torts, citing Florida statutes on patients' rights and surrogates. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that Florida law imposed no duty on the hospital or physicians to provide access or information to non-spouses absent a recognized legal relationship, that the cited statutes did not create private rights of action or negligence per se in this context, and that allegations of anti-gay animus did not establish the required elements for the tort claims.

torts & liabilityhealthcarefamily lawcivil rights

In this case, Bolivian plaintiffs sued the former President and Minister of Defense of Bolivia under the Torture Victim Protection Act for directing military and police actions that resulted in the extrajudicial killings of their relatives during 2003 protests in Warisata and El Alto. The defendants moved to dismiss the TVPA claims, arguing that the plaintiffs had not exhausted remedies available in Bolivia, including compensation payments authorized by a 2003 Humanitarian Assistance Agreement and 2008 legislation providing additional lump-sum payments and educational benefits. The court treated exhaustion as an affirmative defense and found that the defendants had shown adequate remedies existed in Bolivia. Because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that those remedies were ineffective, inadequate, or futile, the court dismissed the TVPA claims without prejudice, requiring the plaintiffs to pursue the Bolivian remedies first.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In this criminal case, defendants were charged with federal fraud and money laundering offenses arising from their operation of Mutual Benefits Company, a viatical settlements business that allegedly became a Ponzi scheme causing $837 million in investor losses. Several newspapers intervened to seek access to approximately 30 sealed documents and hearing transcripts related to pretrial motions, invoking First Amendment and common-law rights of public access to judicial records. The court denied the motions for access without prejudice, holding that closure was justified to protect an ongoing grand jury investigation into related matters and the privacy interests of individuals cleared by that investigation. The court reasoned that the presumption of openness could be overcome by these interests, that redactions would render the materials incomprehensible, and that the balance of factors under relevant precedents supported continued sealing at this stage, with provision for future review.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

Mr. Sieber sued Havana Harry’s under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) after the restaurant printed a credit card receipt that included the card’s expiration date. Havana Harry’s moved to dismiss, and after Congress passed the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act—which barred willful-violation claims based solely on failure to redact expiration dates for transactions between December 2004 and June 2008—the court addressed whether the amendment was constitutional. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the willful-violation claim with prejudice on the ground that the Clarification Act validly eliminated that cause of action without violating separation-of-powers principles, as it did not dictate outcomes in pending cases or reopen final judgments. The court denied the motion as to the negligent-violation claim, allowing that portion of the case to proceed.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In this case, plaintiff Ms. Caban brought a purported class action against J.P. Morgan Chase alleging that the bank overcharged credit card interest rates during leap years 2004 and 2008 by using a daily rate based on 365 days instead of 366, resulting in small per-customer overcharges that aggregated to millions. Chase moved to compel individual arbitration under the cardmember agreement, which included both an arbitration clause and a class-action waiver. The court applied Delaware law (per the agreement's choice-of-law provision) and held that the class-action waiver was unconscionable because it effectively immunized Chase from small-value claims, but that the waiver was severable. It therefore enforced the remainder of the arbitration agreement and ordered the parties to arbitrate on a classwide basis.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved federal charges under the Lacey Act against the defendants for selling snook imported from Nicaragua, which the indictment alleged violated specific provisions of the Florida Administrative Code on snook. The court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing Counts 2, 3, and 4 of the indictment with prejudice, as well as related conspiracy charges in Count 1. The core reasoning was that the Florida regulations do not apply to fish caught outside Florida waters, as established by longstanding Florida Supreme Court precedent requiring explicit extraterritorial language and the rule of lenity resolving any ambiguity in favor of the accused. Without an underlying violation of state law, the Lacey Act charges failed as a matter of law.

criminal lawenvironment