Donald M. Middlebrooks

This case involved a products liability action originally filed in Missouri state court by 99 plaintiffs from multiple states against Bayer entities, alleging injuries from the drug Trasylol. Defendants removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, arguing that the eight non-diverse plaintiffs from Indiana and Pennsylvania had been fraudulently misjoined with the others to defeat complete diversity. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court, finding that the claims satisfied joinder standards under Missouri and federal rules because they shared common questions of law and fact arising from the same series of transactions, so fraudulent misjoinder was not established and diversity jurisdiction was absent. The court denied the request for attorney fees and costs, concluding that the removal had an objectively reasonable basis given the MDL context and existing case law on the doctrine.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves defendants charged with perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) and conspiracy based on allegedly false testimony given during a suppression hearing presided over by Judge Altonaga. The government sought to introduce Judge Altonaga's testimony to establish the materiality element of the perjury counts, while defendants moved in limine to exclude it. Defendants argued that such testimony would be unduly prejudicial under Rule 403, improperly delve into the judge's mental processes, and invade the jury's role in determining materiality under an objective standard. The government countered that the judge was uniquely positioned to address materiality and that any prejudice was minimal. The court analyzed these competing arguments, relevant case law on judicial testimony, and the distinction between objective materiality and subjective influence before resolving the motion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves the SEC's motion to hold defendant Jamie L. Solow in civil contempt for failing to comply with a 2008 final judgment that found him liable for securities fraud violations involving inverse floating rate collateralized mortgage obligations and ordered him to pay over $6 million in disgorgement, interest, and penalties. The court determined that Solow was in contempt after evidence showed he had transferred assets, including securities accounts and real estate, to his wife and established an offshore trust shortly before and after the judgment to avoid payment obligations. The core reasoning was that the disgorgement order serves the public interest in securities law enforcement, Solow's asset dissipation demonstrated willful noncompliance rather than inability to pay, and nominal payments made did not satisfy the judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition challenging state and federal permits issued for construction of the West County Energy Center power plant and an associated natural gas pipeline in Palm Beach County, Florida. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, NEPA, and RICO statutes, claiming improper project segmentation, inadequate environmental review, conflicts of interest in state approvals, and harm to protected species and waters. The court granted multiple defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint, including those from the Army Corps of Engineers, Florida DEP, State of Florida, and private parties, while denying others as moot. Dismissal rested on plaintiffs' failure to state viable federal claims under applicable statutes and procedural rules, with the court declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law issues.

environmentfederal powerprocedurecriminal law

The case concerned defendants' motion for taxation of costs after the district court dismissed plaintiffs' federal claims with prejudice and state claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The court interpreted the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1919, which authorizes an award of just costs when a suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, rather than under Rule 54(d) applicable to prevailing parties after a merits judgment. It awarded defendants $1,682.29 in deposition and copying costs that it deemed just and recoverable but denied recovery of late fees or interest on unpaid bills.

procedure

This case is a class action brought by current and former participants in United States Sugar Corporation's Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) against the company, its directors, officers, a controlling shareholder, and the plan trustee, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of ERISA arising from the alleged undervaluation of plan shares by failing to account for a third-party acquisition offer. The court addressed five motions to dismiss the thirteen-count consolidated complaint. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing Count IV without prejudice on ripeness grounds while permitting other claims to proceed after accepting the plaintiffs' factual allegations as true at this stage and rejecting arguments for complete preemption or failure to state a claim on the remaining counts.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved buyers who sued a developer over a 2005 preconstruction condominium purchase contract, claiming violations of the federal Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act due to an allegedly illusory two-year completion commitment and violations of Florida’s Condominium Act based on later adverse changes to the offering documents. The court granted the developer’s motion to dismiss the ILSA claim with prejudice, finding that the contract as a whole imposed a valid, unconditional obligation to complete construction within two years despite a force majeure clause and other provisions, which qualified the sale for an ILSA exemption. The court denied dismissal of the state-law claim, holding that the buyers had sufficiently alleged material adverse modifications that allowed them to seek cancellation. The decision rested on standard Rule 12(b)(6) review of the complaint’s allegations taken as true and on contract interpretation principles under Florida law.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved environmental plaintiffs seeking a temporary injunction to halt construction of the West County Energy Center power plant in Palm Beach County, Florida, alleging violations of federal environmental statutes including the Clean Air Act, NEPA, Endangered Species Act, and Clean Water Act, as well as state laws and RICO claims against various state, federal, and private defendants. The court denied the motion for temporary injunctive relief. The decision was based on lack of jurisdiction due to improper service on defendants and questions about the court's authority over the relevant agencies, as well as the plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, immediate irreparable harm, or an actual emergency, given prior similar filings and the advanced stage of some project components.

environmentprocedure

This case is a purported class action by customers against ADT Security Services alleging violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs claimed ADT knowingly sold alarm systems with analog cellular backup components that would stop functioning after the 2008 FCC-mandated sunset of analog service, concealed this fact from buyers, and later charged customers hundreds of dollars to upgrade. On ADT’s motion to dismiss, the court held that the FDUTPA claim was adequately pled because ADT had a duty to disclose the known impending failure and that contracts with customers did not bar the claim. The court also allowed the unjust enrichment claim to proceed, noting that plaintiffs had not asserted an express contract claim that would conflict with it. The motion to dismiss was therefore denied in full.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Jamie L. Solow alleging he engaged in a fraudulent trading scheme by secretly purchasing large positions in risky inverse floating rate collateralized mortgage obligations without authorization, submitting false trade tickets to conceal the activity, and selling unsuitable securities to retail investors, while also aiding his firm's violations of broker-dealer record-keeping, net capital, and reporting rules. A jury found Solow liable for violating antifraud provisions under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and for aiding and abetting violations of other Exchange Act provisions. On the SEC's motion for remedies, the court considered requests for permanent injunctions against future violations, disgorgement of approximately $2.65 million in ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and third-tier civil penalties, applying factors such as the egregiousness of the conduct, degree of scienter, and likelihood of recurrence to assess the appropriateness of injunctive relief and monetary sanctions.

business & regulatory

This case involved a claim by plaintiff Muhammad Azam-Qureshi against his employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation and related damages. After the plaintiff accepted the defendant's offer of judgment awarding $153.84 in wages plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs to be determined by the court, the plaintiff moved for a total of $13,895.45 in fees and costs. The court applied the lodestar method of multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate, drawing on Hensley v. Eckerhart and Johnson factors, and emphasized the need for billing judgment to exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary time such as duplicative reviews of simple filings. The decision turned on assessing the prevailing market rate and adjusting for the limited scope and results of the litigation.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the Mizner Tower Condominium Association seeking a declaratory judgment that its commercial residential insurance policy with QBE Insurance was valid and enforceable, after the policy had been issued subject to completion of loss-prevention conditions such as shutter installations by a June 2007 deadline. The Association notified QBE of possible non-compliance on some units, requested confirmation of coverage by a set date, and filed suit when no response arrived; QBE later confirmed that hurricane coverage remained in full force and effect for the policy period. The court granted QBE's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case as moot, holding that the insurer's written confirmation left no remaining issues requiring judicial determination. The court also rejected the Association's request for attorney fees under Florida Statute 627.428, finding the statute inapplicable where no wrongful denial of benefits had occurred.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a former Gymboree store manager suing her employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation and seeking to proceed as a collective action. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was exempt from FLSA overtime requirements as a bona fide executive employee. The core reasoning was that her primary duty was management, based on tasks such as interviewing and training employees, directing their work, appraising productivity, and handling day-to-day store operations with limited oversight from district and regional managers, even though she also performed non-exempt duties like selling merchandise.

labor & employment

This case involved a condominium association suing its insurer for damages from Hurricane Wilma under a policy that the jury found violated a Florida statute requiring specific boldface hurricane deductible notice in at least 18-point type. The jury awarded over $8 million in damages and determined the policy did not comply with the statutory font and wording requirements, but the court had deferred ruling on whether this violation rendered the deductible void. The court interpreted the statute's language as mandatory based on rules of statutory construction, examined penalties in the context of the full Insurance Code, and considered analogous Florida precedents to decide the effect on the judgment, while also addressing related motions for prejudgment interest and other relief.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Levenger Company and Jack and Shirley Feldman over patents for a disk-bound notebook system, a license agreement allowing Levenger to manufacture the notebooks in exchange for royalties, and related claims including trade dress infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract. Levenger sought declarations of patent invalidity, unenforceability, and non-infringement along with other equitable relief, while the Feldmans counterclaimed for breach of the license agreement, willful patent infringement, and other relief. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Levenger on some of its claims and in favor of the Feldmans on one of their counterclaims, based on findings regarding the patents' origins from prior art, the parties' oral and written agreements, royalty payments, and conduct in the patent applications.

business & regulatory

This case involves claims by marina owner Stuart Cay against boat owner Phipps and the vessel M/V Special Delivery for damages to docks during Hurricane Frances in 2004. The plaintiff alleged negligence for failing to move the vessel to a safe harbor or properly secure it, resulting in an allision with the docks, and trespass for unauthorized use of the facilities. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the negligence and trespass claims, arguing no duty to move the vessel and lack of intent for trespass, while the plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability based on a presumption of fault for a moving vessel striking a stationary object. The court denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the defendants' duty of care, whether reasonable precautions were taken, whether the hurricane qualified as an Act of God, and the elements of trespass under maritime law.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

The case involved individuals recovering from alcohol and drug addiction, along with the corporate providers of their sober housing facilities, who sued the City of Boca Raton alleging that Ordinances 4649 and 4701 and a related code provision on the definition of 'family' violated the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment by restricting where such facilities could operate. The court held a non-jury trial and issued findings of fact detailing the plaintiffs' oversight practices, the public comments leading to the ordinances, and the absence of evidence that the facilities harmed surrounding residential areas. The core reasoning examined whether the ordinances' definitions of substance abuse treatment facilities—based on licensing requirements or mandatory treatment/testing—effectively barred the plaintiffs from residential zones due to their handicapped status and whether the city's stated goals of separating compatible uses were supported by the record.

civil rightsproperty

In this case, plaintiff Vital Pharmaceuticals sued defendant American Body Building Products under the Lanham Act and Florida common law for alleged trade dress infringement and unfair competition arising from the sale of similar beverage products. After a five-day bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the defendant on all claims. The defendant then moved for attorney's fees under Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which permits fee awards in exceptional cases. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff's claims qualified as exceptional because they lacked any meaningful evidentiary support—such as survey evidence or other proof of secondary meaning for the claimed trade dress—without requiring a separate showing of fraud or bad faith by the plaintiff.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a former firefighter/EMT suing the City of Deerfield Beach under the FLSA for unpaid overtime wages after working shifts exceeding 40 hours per week. The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff qualified for the fire protection employee exemption under 29 U.S.C. § 203(y). The court reasoned that all City firefighters/EMTs were cross-trained in both fire suppression and emergency medical services, that the plaintiff was authorized and occasionally ordered to perform fire suppression duties regardless of the vehicle used, and that his duties involved no non-exempt work, satisfying the statutory definition even under the prior 80/20 rule applied in the circuit. The opinion emphasized congressional intent to modernize the exemption for dual-function personnel employed by fire departments.

labor & employment

This case involves individual recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, along with the operators of sober living residences in Boca Raton, challenging the City's Ordinance No. 4649 (as amended) and Section 28-2 of the Code of Ordinances. The ordinances restrict substance abuse treatment facilities to specific non-residential zones and limit the definition of 'family' for occupancy purposes to related persons or no more than three unrelated individuals. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming the rules discriminate against people with disabilities by forcing relocation or prohibiting group living arrangements common in recovery housing. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, examining standing for plaintiffs who had moved out of the residences, whether recovering addicts qualify as disabled or handicapped under the statutes, and whether the ordinances have a discriminatory effect or fail to provide reasonable accommodations.

civil rightsproperty