Kenneth A. Marra

This case concerns whether Regions Bank properly perfected security interests in the assets of bankruptcy debtors Camtech and Avstar Fuel through UCC-1 financing statements filed in Florida and New York. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, concluding that the statements failed to list the debtors properly, were seriously misleading under UCC rules, and left Regions unsecured, requiring disgorgement of payments. On appeal, the district court reviewed the matter de novo and reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the filing offices' treatment of additional debtor information on unapproved attachments and potential indexing errors. The court noted that the statements used Florida forms with attachments listing the debtors and that evidence about office practices could affect whether the filings were effective under New York and Florida UCC provisions. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case is an in rem civil forfeiture action brought by the United States against bank funds and four parcels of real property in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Illinois that were acquired from ADT Security Services in sale-leaseback transactions and linked to an underlying federal fraud prosecution. Claimants Gannon Family Company, LLC and Bayhill Development, LLC asserted minority ownership interests in the properties and filed verified notices of claim. The government moved to strike the claims for lack of standing or, alternatively, for partial summary judgment. After de novo review, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full, granting partial summary judgment to the government, denying the motion to strike as moot, and denying attorney’s fees without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the claimants failed to establish Article III standing because their asserted interests derived from administratively dissolved LLCs or unsecured creditor status rather than cognizable ownership rights in the defendant properties.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case involves two alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein who filed a petition under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) against the United States, claiming that the U.S. Attorney’s Office violated their rights by failing to notify them of plea negotiations and a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein before it was finalized. The plaintiffs sought findings of CVRA violations, acceptance of their facts, orders for evidence disclosure, and addressed a motion to intervene. The court determined that the CVRA applies even before formal charges are filed against a defendant. It denied several motions, including one to accept facts as uncontested and the intervention motion, while deferring a ruling on the merits of the CVRA claims pending further discovery.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns an ERISA dispute in which plaintiff Edward Neubarth, a participant in an employer-sponsored disability plan underwritten by Hartford Life, sued after his approved benefits were terminated following an offset for social security payments. Plaintiff filed a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) seeking recovery of plan benefits, a declaratory judgment, and disgorgement of profits or gains allegedly obtained by the insurer through the denial. The court granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss only the disgorgement request. It reasoned that section 1132(a)(1)(B) permits enforcement of the plan’s terms as written and does not authorize additional equitable relief such as disgorgement, which would instead require a separate claim under the statute’s catch-all provision when no other remedy is available.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves Colombian plaintiffs, family members of individuals killed by the AUC paramilitary group in the 1990s and early 2000s, suing Chiquita Brands International for allegedly providing financial and material support to the AUC (and in some instances the FARC) in banana-growing regions. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of international law such as torture, extrajudicial killing, and war crimes; under the Torture Victim Protection Act for torture and killing; and under state and Colombian law for common-law torts. On defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaints, the court disposed of arguments against the TVPA claims and found the allegations against the AUC sufficient, but dismissed the FARC-related claims for failure to adequately plead aiding-and-abetting liability while granting the Perez plaintiffs leave to amend. The core reasoning focused on whether the complaints plausibly alleged Chiquita's knowing and substantial assistance to the groups with awareness of their human-rights violations.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute in which Medmarc Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that its insured, Pineiro & Byrd PLLC (as successor to a predecessor firm), was not covered under a professional liability policy for claims arising from the predecessor's failure to place over $14 million in escrow funds into an interest-bearing account. Pineiro filed a counterclaim seeking the opposite declaration, along with orders requiring Medmarc to defend and indemnify. Medmarc moved to dismiss or strike the counterclaim as redundant because it mirrored the issues in the complaint. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the counterclaim sought different relief and served a useful purpose in resolving the parties' respective rights under the policy, and that courts have discretion to retain such claims even if somewhat repetitive, particularly in insurance contract interpretation cases.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a class action filed by plaintiff Brenda Shaver against Ford Motor Co. in Florida state court, alleging violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act along with later-added claims of strict liability and negligence related to defective vehicles. After removal to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), the plaintiff moved for remand, arguing that the defendant had not shown the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. The court denied the motion for remand. The core reasoning was that the original complaint's allegations of damages exceeding $15,000 per plaintiff and a class of at least hundreds of thousands of persons established the jurisdictional threshold on its face at the time of removal, supported by an affidavit showing over 726,000 recalled vehicles.

procedurefederal powertorts & liability

This diversity case involves Office Depot suing its insurers, National Union and American Casualty, for declaratory judgment and breach of contract over coverage under an executive and organization liability policy for costs incurred in responding to an SEC investigation and a related internal investigation and audit prompted by a whistleblower complaint about accounting issues. The SEC probe did not result in any formal judicial or administrative complaint against the company or its officers. The court granted summary judgment to the carriers, holding that the disputed costs were not covered losses because they did not arise from a covered Securities Claim against the organization or a Claim against an insured person under the policy's definitions, which explicitly exclude coverage for administrative or regulatory investigations and distinguish between formal claims and preliminary inquiries. The policy's structure limits organization coverage to Securities Claims and indemnification of insured persons for covered Claims, with no obligation for other organizational liabilities.

business & regulatory

The case involves Miller's Ale House, Inc. suing Boynton Carolina Ale House, LLC for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and copyright infringement based on the defendant's use of the 'Carolina Ale House' name and similar restaurant features, including red signage, menu items, server uniforms, interior design elements like a central bar and open kitchen, and floor plans, in a location near one of Miller's restaurants. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that 'Ale House' is a generic term that cannot be protected as a trademark, Miller's claimed trade dress consists of functional or common elements that are not distinctive, and the copyrighted floor plans are not substantially similar to the defendant's design as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involves plaintiff David Lippman suing multiple law enforcement defendants, including the City of Miami, Broward Sheriff's Office officers, and federal agents, after his parked vehicle was searched without a warrant during the 2003 FTAA summit amid heightened security measures for anticipated demonstrations. The claims center on alleged Fourth Amendment violations, as well as state tort claims such as trespass and negligence, stemming from a K-9 unit's interaction with the vehicle and officers' assessments of risk in a high-security environment. The court reviewed several motions for summary judgment or dismissal, determining that a constitutional violation occurred as a matter of law while addressing disputes over probable cause, exigent circumstances, qualified immunity, and sovereign immunity based on conflicting affidavits and evidence regarding the dog's alert and officers' knowledge. It also considered the application of mutual aid agreements among agencies and the discretionary nature of emergency policing decisions.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liability

The case involved a Florida-based television production company suing the North Carolina-based operators of the website 800Notes.com for libel per se, alleging that user-posted comments on the site defamed the company by portraying it as a telemarketing scam rather than a legitimate producer of documentaries. The defendants moved to dismiss, primarily arguing lack of personal jurisdiction over them in Florida. The court granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the defendants had no sufficient minimum contacts with Florida, as they operated the site from North Carolina without targeting Florida specifically and the site functioned as a passive forum for user comments with no editing or solicitation by the defendants.

proceduretorts & liabilityfree speech

In Lippman v. City of Miami, freelance reporter David Lippman alleged that FBI agents surveilled him en route to cover 2003 FTAA protests in Miami due to his status as a known protester, then directed a search and seizure of his truck without probable cause, resulting in property damage and a chilling effect on his speech. The United States moved to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claim against the unnamed FBI Doe defendants, arguing lack of retaliatory motive or personal participation, qualified immunity, and untimeliness. The court denied dismissal, holding that the Third Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged the Doe defendants' direct involvement in initiating the search and seizure as retaliation, rejected qualified immunity at the pleading stage where no probable cause was pled, and found the claim timely under relation-back principles.

free speechcivil rights

This case involved a claim by former employee Andre Laplante against Terraces of Lake Worth Rehabilitation and Health Center, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking unpaid straight-time and overtime wages. The plaintiff alleged she was forced to work off the clock after her scheduled shifts ended and that the employer automatically deducted pay for lunch breaks she did not take. After a bench trial, the court entered final judgment in favor of the defendant. The court found the plaintiff's testimony on these issues lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and rejected her claims that supervisors directed off-the-clock work or that the employer knew or should have known of any uncompensated time.

labor & employment

This case concerns claims by U.S. citizens and estates of deceased missionaries who were kidnapped and murdered by the FARC terrorist organization in Colombia against Chiquita Brands International. Plaintiffs allege that Chiquita aided and abetted the attacks, conspired with FARC, and provided material support to terrorists, seeking damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2332, 2333, 2339A) as well as state-law claims for wrongful death, false imprisonment, emotional distress, and assault. The court addressed Chiquita's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, assuming the pleaded facts to be true, including FARC's designation as a foreign terrorist organization and its ransom-driven operations. Core reasoning drew on precedents such as Boim III and Central Bank of Denver to evaluate secondary liability under statutes silent on aiding and abetting, while noting limitations on tolling state statutes of limitations.

criminal lawtorts & liability

The case involved a petition by Empresa De Telecomunicaciones De Bogota S.A. E.S.P. to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitral award against Mercury Telco Group, Inc. arising from a dispute over a Prepaid Card Cooperation Agreement for commercializing prepaid calling cards. The arbitration, conducted in Bogota, Colombia under Colombian law, resulted in an award in favor of the petitioner after the respondent failed to participate despite receiving notices. The court decided to grant the petition and confirm the award, reasoning that the award fell under the Panama Convention, proper notice was given to the respondent, the arbitration proceedings complied with the agreement and applicable law, and no defenses under the Convention applied to prevent enforcement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Mercury Telco Group suing Empresa De Telecomunicaciones De Bogota over claims including breach of contract, tortious interference, fraud, Lanham Act violation, and defamation arising from a 2005 agreement to commercialize prepaid calling cards. The defendant moved to dismiss in favor of arbitration based on the agreement's arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved by an arbitral tribunal in Bogota under Colombian law. The court granted the motion, dismissing the case, reasoning that the Federal Arbitration Act and international conventions mandate enforcement of the broad arbitration clause, that fraud claims challenging the contract's validity are for the arbitrator per Supreme Court precedent, and that all claims relate to the agreement's performance.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a lawsuit by plaintiff Nancy Valencia against defendant The Affiliated Group, Inc. under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for alleged violations in debt collection practices. The defendant had made an offer of judgment for the maximum statutory damages plus fees and costs, which the plaintiff rejected, leading to further litigation that ultimately resolved via stipulation for $1,000 in damages. The court considered the plaintiff's motion for $8,078 in attorney's fees and $480 in costs, granting it in part by awarding $2,640 in fees and $380 in costs. The core reasoning was that fees must be reasonable under the FDCPA and applicable precedents like Hensley v. Eckerhart, with reductions applied for work that was unnecessary, duplicative, or incurred after the offer of judgment that exceeded the final recovery. The award included post-judgment interest at 0.40%.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a securities fraud class action brought by lead plaintiffs against defendants including Nicholas Peraticos, alleging that they made materially false and misleading statements about Pegasus Wireless Corporation, causing investors to purchase stock at artificially inflated prices in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as a control person claim under Section 20(a). The court granted Peraticos's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to plead with particularity any false statements or omissions attributable to Peraticos or facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and thus no primary violation was stated to support the control person liability claim. Leave to amend was granted.

business & regulatory

This case involves a shareholder derivative action under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, seeking recovery of short-swing profits from defendant CFI, a more-than-10% beneficial owner of Bluegreen stock. After Bluegreen adopted a poison pill targeting CFI and CFI wrote call options that were later exercised, leading to sales of Bluegreen shares, the court considered whether the transactions qualified for the "unorthodox transaction" exception to Section 16(b) liability. The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on liability, holding that the exception did not apply because CFI's decisions to write the call options and engage in the related transactions were voluntary economic choices rather than involuntary, as in Kern County Land Co. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. The court reasoned that the economic risks and choices inherent in securities trading, including responses to defensive measures like poison pills, do not exempt statutory insiders from disgorgement of profits realized within six months.

business & regulatory

In Kertesz v. Net Transactions, Ltd., plaintiff Heather Kertesz alleged that defendants used her image without consent in promotional material on a pornographic website after she attended a party in Florida where filming occurred and she refused to sign a release. The claims included unauthorized publication of likeness under Florida statute, defamation by implication, unjust enrichment, and declaratory/injunctive relief under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). The court granted motions to dismiss Aruban defendants Ventura Content and TB Advertising for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient minimum contacts with Florida. It also dismissed the FDUTPA count in part, holding that non-consumers cannot recover monetary damages under the statute, while granting leave to amend to seek only injunctive or declaratory relief and to fix pleading deficiencies.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory