Steven Douglas Merryday

The Estate of Juanita Amelia Jackson obtained a $110 million default judgment in Florida state court against defunct nursing home owners for wrongful death. To collect the judgment, the estate initiated supplemental proceedings under Section 56.29, Florida Statutes, to implead additional parties alleged to hold fraudulently transferred assets. Multiple impleaded parties removed the proceedings to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court held that a Section 56.29 supplemental proceeding is not a removable civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and that the parties lack complete diversity, requiring remand to state court.

procedurefederal power

The case involves the United States seeking to enforce tax liens on William O'Callaghan's residence for unpaid federal income taxes from 1981, 1982, and 1983, along with a money judgment for additional tax years, after years of negotiation, bankruptcy proceedings, and resistance to payment. O'Callaghan moved for a stay of the foreclosure sale and judgment pending appeal without posting a supersedeas bond. The court denied the stay, finding no meritorious defense to the foreclosure, that O'Callaghan could not secure the judgment during the appeal, and that the prevailing party should not bear the risk of loss. The decision rests on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 62(d), (c), and (f), historical requirements for bonds to protect judgment creditors, and the absence of facts warranting departure from the standard practice of requiring full security.

taxesfederal powerpropertyprocedure

The case concerns a dispute between a limited partnership that operates a resort hotel at a Florida condominium complex and the condominium association over which party must fund repairs to the common elements, with unit owners also serving as limited partners. The bankruptcy court ruled for the Association after finding the 1984 Agreement ultra vires, rejecting the Partnership's claims for damages and an order compelling assessments, and declaring other claims moot. On appeal, the district court reviewed the Declaration of Condominium, Partnership Agreement, bylaws, and Florida condominium statutes to determine that the Association holds responsibility for common-element repairs as a common expense and that unit-owner votes rejecting assessments did not relieve that duty, while also addressing the validity of the 1984 Agreement and the sufficiency of the Partnership's damages evidence.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case was a district court appeal from a bankruptcy court judgment declaring a 99-year recreational facilities lease unconscionable under Florida statute and common law, sustaining objections to creditor claims, and disallowing those claims in the debtor association's Chapter 11 case. The appellants challenged whether the dispute qualified as a core proceeding, the correctness of the unconscionability ruling based on the lease's rent terms and history of non-payment, and whether prior settlements or long inaction barred the unconscionability defense via waiver, release, res judicata, or laches. The district court examined the lease structure, settlement agreements, procedural issues including adoption of proposed findings, and applicable bankruptcy and Florida law to resolve the appeal.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerns claims by Drilling Consultants, Inc. and the Zieglers against First Montauk Securities, Pacific Life Insurance, and agents Haskell and Lombardi, alleging that the defendants marketed and sold life insurance policies for a Section 412(i) defined benefit pension plan that the IRS later identified as an abusive tax shelter. The defendants removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds and moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court held that fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims are subject to the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), while other claims need only satisfy Rule 8(a) unless they are identical to the fraud claims; it therefore applied Rule 9(b) only to the fraud-based counts. The reasoning rests on the distinction between fraud and non-fraud allegations, the plaintiffs' concession that their contract claim was duplicative of the fraud claim, and established precedent interpreting the pleading rules.

business & regulatorytaxesproceduretorts & liability

The case is an SEC enforcement action against defendant Kenneth R. Kramer seeking a permanent injunction for alleged violations of the broker registration requirement in Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, along with related remedies including a penny stock bar, disgorgement, and penalties. Following a bench trial, the court addressed multiple pending motions concerning the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence, including objections to hearsay statements from an unavailable witness under Rules 804 and 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as well as other evidentiary and procedural issues. The court examined the multi-factor test for determining whether conduct constitutes broker activity under the Exchange Act, rejecting the Commission's proposed single-factor emphasis on transaction-based compensation and noting that no-action letters and other guidance require a cogent, multi-faceted analysis tied to the statute.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a class action under the Ohio Retail Installment Sales Act against Student Loan Xpress concerning student loan obligations from Silver State, which settled with relief consisting primarily of loan forgiveness, interest modifications, and credit reporting adjustments. The court had previously approved the settlement and now rules on class counsel's unopposed motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards to be paid by the defendant, subject to a negotiated cap of $4,970,000 based on lodestar plus multiplier. After reviewing evidence on prevailing market rates in the Middle District of Florida, the court adjusts claimed hourly rates downward, calculates a total lodestar of approximately $1.84 million, finds the requested multiplier reasonable in principle, and tentatively applies it to reach a fee award of $3,259,414.91 along with approved costs and service awards.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a claim by an insured driver against his automobile insurer for bad faith failure to settle a bodily injury and property damage claim arising from a 2006 accident within the policy limits of $10,000 per person. The district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and denied the insured’s cross-motion, entering judgment for the defendant. The court’s reasoning was that the insurer had promptly disclosed policy information as required by Florida statute, repeatedly attempted to contact the claimants’ unresponsive attorney to obtain a proposed release and confirm terms, prepared and delivered the necessary acceptance documents (including an extra $66 from the insured) before the settlement deadline, and thus acted fairly and honestly toward its insured without exposing him to an excess judgment through its own fault.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Sanderson v. Zurich American Insurance, plaintiff James Sanderson sued his insurers for breach of contract after they declined coverage and defense in an underlying lawsuit by his former employer, St. Luke’s Cataract and Laser Institute, which asserted claims including copyright infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations arising from Sanderson’s use of a website he had helped create while employed there. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the insurance policies’ exclusion for “personal and advertising injury” barred coverage for the claims asserted against Sanderson. The court reviewed the undisputed facts concerning Sanderson’s employment, development of the website, resignation, and subsequent control of the domain names, and examined the policy language and the nature of St. Luke’s allegations to determine whether the exclusion applied. The opinion addresses the parties’ arguments on the scope of coverage and any potential estoppel issues but contains no final ruling on the motion in the provided excerpt.

business & regulatory

The SEC sued Sky Way Global, LLC and individual defendants for selling unregistered securities and defrauding investors through pump-and-dump schemes, seeking a permanent injunction, disgorgement, and penalties. After the clerk entered default against Sky Way Global, the SEC moved unopposed for default judgment including an obey-the-law injunction that would permanently bar the defendant from violating specific securities statutes and rules. The court analyzed whether such an injunction satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), which mandates that injunctions state their terms specifically and describe the prohibited acts in reasonable detail without merely referencing statutes or the complaint. Drawing on precedents such as Schmidt v. Lessard and Hughey v. JMS Development Corp., the court concluded that an obey-the-law injunction is impermissibly vague, fails to provide fair notice, and prevents effective appellate review, rendering it unenforceable.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a plaintiff's FLSA lawsuit against Regions Bank seeking overtime compensation, in which the parties reached a settlement providing $8,462.08 to the plaintiff for wages and liquidated damages plus separate attorney fees and jointly sought court approval. The court had previously rejected an initial agreement containing a confidentiality clause and now reviews an amended version that removes that provision but retains an expansive release clause. The court denies approval of the settlement, reasoning that while the monetary terms appear reasonable and address a bona fide dispute, the release broadly waives all claims arising from the plaintiff's employment—including unknown claims under numerous federal and state statutes such as the ADEA, ADA, and FMLA—preventing confident assessment of the agreement's fairness, which is required under the FLSA unlike in typical civil litigation.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Odyssey Marine Exploration seeking title under the law of finds to artifacts from the wreck of Le Marquis Tournay, a French vessel sunk in the English Channel in the late 18th century and located outside any nation's territorial waters. The plaintiff had recovered a few items, published notice, and obtained a default, then moved for default judgment awarding title to both recovered artifacts and those it planned to recover from the site. The court granted title to the recovered artifacts (a shard of glass, ship's bell, and piece of sheathing) that were within its territorial jurisdiction but denied title to unrecovered artifacts, as in rem jurisdiction requires the entire res to be present in the court's territory and the law of finds requires actual or constructive possession. The court also vacated the warrant of arrest in rem because the plaintiff had not shown sufficient control over the wreck site.

propertyprocedure

The case involves a landowner who purchased commercially zoned property in Pasco County and obtained development approvals, including a traffic concurrency certificate, but later faced county demands under its Right-of-Way Preservation Ordinance to dedicate 140 feet of right-of-way for future widening of State Route 52 as a condition of site plan approval, without compensation or a demonstrated link to the project's traffic impact. The landowner sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging the ordinance and related customs amounted to an extortionate exaction that violated constitutional protections and disproportionately burdened certain property owners. The county moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that the landowner lacked standing due to voluntary compliance with the process. The court denied the motion, finding that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to establish standing through a concrete injury traceable to the county's actions and to support claims of discriminatory intent in applying the dedication requirement.

propertycivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a dispute over two performance bonds issued by Westchester Fire Insurance Company on behalf of a developer, Levitt, to the City of Brooksville to guarantee completion of infrastructure improvements for Phase Two of a residential housing project called Cascades of Southern Hills. After Levitt abandoned the project amid bankruptcy and a successor owner showed no interest in developing the phase, the City sought to recover the full $5.3 million bond amount under the bonds and a local ordinance requiring such security for plat approval, while Westchester sought a declaratory judgment that it owed nothing. The court granted summary judgment to Westchester and denied the City's motion, holding that the City had suffered no damages, was not obligated to construct the improvements itself, and that payment would create an improper windfall unrelated to the ordinance's purpose of ensuring improvements for future owners. The core reasoning was that the bonds' conditions were not triggered in a manner requiring payment where development had ceased indefinitely and the true beneficiary would be the successor developer rather than the City or public.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved an insured homeowner suing Liberty Mutual for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress after the insurer declined to fully cover roof repairs and mold remediation following hurricane damage in 2004-2005 that led to leaks, tarp failures, and health issues from mold. The insurer moved to dismiss the emotional distress claim. The court granted the motion and dismissed that count, holding that the insurer's repeated settlement offers over three years—even if viewed as inadequate or causing delay—did not meet the legal threshold for "outrageous" conduct under Florida precedent, which requires conduct beyond all bounds of decency. The ruling turned on the principle that mere denial or delay of an insurance claim, without more extreme facts, cannot support an intentional infliction claim as a matter of law.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a proposed class action by a non-tribal employee against the Seminole Tribe of Florida to recover minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Constitution for hourly-paid dealers at the Tribe's gaming facilities. The Tribe moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. The court granted the motion and dismissed the federal claim, holding that tribal sovereign immunity persists under Supreme Court precedent and was not expressly waived by the Tribe or abrogated by Congress in the FLSA. Although the FLSA applies to tribes as a general statute, the court found no clear and unambiguous waiver in the gaming compact or elsewhere, and it declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim.

labor & employmentfederal power

Ellen Haynes, a wheelchair user with severe back pain living at the Rice Creek RV Resort, sued the resort's owner under the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. She alleged that the resident-run Neighborhood Association discriminated against her at bingo and billiards events by segregating handicapped participants and that a manager made a statement showing preference against handicapped tenants. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the claims involving the association's events, finding the association was not the defendant's agent and that the owner had no duty to intervene in private tenant activities or enforce accommodations for them. The court denied summary judgment on the claim based on the manager's alleged discriminatory statement, allowing that FHA claim to proceed to trial.

civil rightsprocedureproperty

In this case, former employee John Dees sued his employer Hydradry, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages. The parties reached a private settlement and filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice, but the court was required to review the agreement for fairness under Eleventh Circuit precedent. The opinion explains that the FLSA prohibits unsupervised waivers of minimum wage and overtime rights due to unequal bargaining power between employers and employees, and that judicial approval is needed to ensure any compromise reflects a bona fide dispute rather than an invalid release of statutory protections. The court further holds that FLSA settlements must generally remain part of the public record to serve the statute's protective purpose and the public's interest in transparent judicial proceedings.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved John Dees suing his former employer Hydradry, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages. After the parties reached a private settlement and submitted a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice, the court reviewed the agreement as required by Eleventh Circuit precedent in Lynn's Food Stores v. United States. Drawing on Supreme Court authority such as Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil, the court explained that the FLSA prohibits unsupervised waivers of statutory rights due to unequal bargaining power and requires judicial approval only for compromises resolving bona fide disputes over coverage or amounts owed. The opinion further addressed standards for evaluating settlement fairness, including attorney's fees, and the presumption of public access to court records rather than sealing agreements.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved an automobile repair shop suing State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for slander, alleging that State Farm agents made false statements to insured customers about the shop overcharging and performing substandard work, which steered customers to competing shops. The court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. Under Florida law, the statements were protected by a qualified privilege because they were made in good faith by an insurer to its insureds about matters of common interest, such as the quality and cost of repairs under insurance policies. The plaintiff failed to present evidence that State Farm acted with express malice to overcome the privilege, as the statements concerned only the shared interest in repairs and did not demonstrate ill will or an intent to harm beyond protecting that interest.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory