Federico A. Moreno

This case involved a contract dispute in which the district court entered a $5 million judgment for the plaintiff after a bench trial. The defendant moved to vacate the judgment under Rules 12(b)(1) and 60, arguing that diversity jurisdiction was lacking because the defendant, a Delaware corporation that had dissolved and withdrawn from Florida business before suit was filed, remained a Florida citizen at its last place of business. The court denied the motion, holding that a dissolved and inactive corporation's citizenship for diversity purposes is limited to its state of incorporation. The decision rested on precedent treating dissolved corporations' citizenship as the state of incorporation and on the conclusion that the Supreme Court's nerve-center test from Hertz does not apply to entities that have formally ceased operations.

procedure

In Sundale, Ltd. v. Ocean Bank, the debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's dismissal with prejudice of its claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and equitable estoppel against the bank, which were based on an alleged oral agreement to extend the maturity date of a $12 million loan; the dismissal rested on Florida's Banking Statute of Frauds, § 687.0304, because the agreement was not in a signed writing. Sundale moved for leave to amend its appellate brief to add an argument that the statute does not apply to oral modifications of existing credit agreements rather than new ones. The district court denied the motion, holding that the new claim could not be inferred from the issues designated under Bankruptcy Rule 8006, was not raised in the bankruptcy court, and therefore was waived on appeal. Even if the argument were considered, the court reasoned that Florida precedent treats the statute as barring affirmative claims based on unwritten credit agreements while allowing only defensive use, so the proposed amendment would not produce manifest injustice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the International Brotherhood of Teamsters suing Amerijet International, Inc., an air carrier, over the termination of a pilot allegedly due to strike participation, the company's treatment of striking employees regarding pay and work opportunities, breach of a letter agreement prohibiting retaliation, and enforcement of arbitration awards. The court granted the company's motion for summary judgment on all counts and denied the union's partial motion, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Railway Labor Act violation claims in Counts I and III, that the contract claims in Counts II and IV were preempted by the RLA, and that the arbitration awards in Count V were unenforceable because they were not issued by properly constituted System Boards of Adjustment with majority votes as required by the collective bargaining agreements and the RLA. The core reasoning centered on the exclusive dispute resolution mechanisms under the RLA for airline labor matters, the need to exhaust contractual grievance procedures, and the statutory requirements for valid arbitration awards.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a condominium association suing its property insurer for breach of contract after the insurer denied a claim for damages from Hurricane Wilma, including disputes over coverage for sliding glass windows and doors as well as alleged misrepresentation by the insured. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part, ruling that the insurance policy covers the fenestrations because Florida Statute section 718.111(11) assigns responsibility for insuring them to the association and the policy's language extends to such condominium property. It denied the plaintiff's motion on the insurer's fraud and concealment defense, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding potential delays in responses, failure to appear for examination under oath, and possible overstatements of damage. The court also denied the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the coverage issue.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case Young v. West Publishing Corp. involved plaintiffs alleging that the defendant violated the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act by obtaining and reselling motor vehicle records for legal research purposes without proper authorization. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the defendant qualified as an authorized recipient under the Act even without using the information itself, as long as it resold to entities with permissible uses. The court further reasoned that legal research constitutes a permissible use under exceptions in 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(4) and (b)(5), such as for litigation-related purposes. Additionally, claims regarding other uses like skip tracing were dismissed for lack of standing and ripeness.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Miguel Larach and Great American Corporation sued defendants Standard Chartered Bank and Stanchart Securities, alleging that the banks pledged assets from the plaintiffs' accounts as unauthorized security for loans made to Larach's sons' companies, then froze and seized over $1.9 million in assets when the loans defaulted. The plaintiffs brought eight counts, including a claim under Section 8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, conversion, fraud, and negligence. The court granted the motion to dismiss the securities law count because there is no private right of action to enforce that section. It denied the motion as to the remaining seven counts, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged facts to state plausible claims under the applicable legal standards for those theories. The court noted that fact-intensive disputes, such as the validity of any pledge agreements, were inappropriate for resolution at the motion-to-dismiss stage and could be revisited on summary judgment.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff Norberto Fuentes, a Cuban author, suing Mega Media Holdings and related defendants for using his copyrighted book excerpts, home movies, name, and likeness without permission in a broadcast of the Maria Elvira Live television program and on YouTube. In addition to a copyright claim that remains pending, the plaintiff asserted statutory and common-law claims for unauthorized appropriation of his name and likeness under Florida Statute § 540.08 and Florida common law. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss those two claims without prejudice, holding that the complaint failed to allege that the defendants used the plaintiff's name or image to promote a separate commercial product or service apart from the television show itself. The court further noted that the plaintiff, as a public figure and author of books on Cuban political figures, could not maintain an intrusion claim because media coverage of matters of public interest is protected by qualified privilege.

torts & liability

The case involves Coach Services, Inc. suing 777 Lucky Accessories, Inc. and related defendants for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, common law unfair competition, and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, based on sunglasses bearing marks similar to those owned by Coach. Defendant 777 Lucky Accessories filed a counterclaim alleging tortious interference with a business relationship, claiming that Coach instructed U.S. Customs to destroy its imported sunglasses. The court granted Coach’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the allegations failed to identify specific business relationships with identifiable customers as required under Florida law and instead referred only vaguely to sales to “various customers.” The court noted that legal conclusions without supporting factual allegations are insufficient and granted leave to amend.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves a Florida plaintiff's attempt to enforce a $27 million state-court default judgment against the Republic of Cuba by issuing writs of garnishment against South Florida charter companies that do business with Cuba. The garnishees removed the state garnishment proceeding to federal court, prompting the plaintiff's motion to remand on jurisdictional grounds. The court held that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 was improper because the action, though seeking to attach assets of a foreign state, did not meet the statutory requirements for federal removal jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to remand the entire matter to Florida state court without addressing whether any FSIA exception to immunity or attachment applied.

federal powerprocedure

The case involved charges against Danish national Camilla Broe for substantive drug trafficking and money laundering offenses (counts 4-14) arising from a conspiracy to import ecstasy into the United States between 1995 and 2000. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed those counts as time-barred under the five-year statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3282, while also denying as moot a separate constitutional speedy-trial motion and closing the case. The core reasoning was that the government failed to meet its burden under 18 U.S.C. § 3290 to show the limitations period was tolled by the defendant's flight from justice, as the record established she had returned to Denmark without intent to evade prosecution and her counsel had maintained ongoing communications with authorities offering cooperation. The remaining conspiracy counts could not be prosecuted due to the terms of her extradition from Denmark under the Rule of Specialty.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves plaintiff eLandia International, Inc., a Delaware corporation based in Florida, suing defendants Sir James Ah Koy, Michael Ah Koy, Kelton Investments Ltd., and Datec Group Ltd. for claims including breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and breach of contract, stemming from alleged actions blocking the sale of plaintiff's assets and related litigation in Fiji. Defendants moved to dismiss the suit filed in the Southern District of Florida for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), contending that the claims failed to satisfy Florida's long-arm statute or constitutional due process. After referral to a magistrate judge, supplemental briefing, and a hearing, the magistrate recommended denial of the motion, finding jurisdiction proper under Florida statutes §§ 685.101-02 and 48.193 based on forum selection clauses, contractual activities, and related contacts. The district court conducted a de novo review, adopted the report and recommendation in full, and denied the motion to dismiss.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved three plaintiffs who received demand letters from the Palmer Law Firm on behalf of retailers seeking civil penalties under state theft recovery statutes after shoplifting incidents involving the plaintiffs or their children. The plaintiffs sued the firm under FDUTPA, alleging that the letters and collection practices were deceptive and unfair. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all counts and denying the plaintiffs' partial summary judgment motion. The core reasoning was that the firm was engaged in the traditional practice of law when sending the letters, rendering FDUTPA inapplicable, and that the plaintiffs failed to show any excessive demands or lack of statutory basis for the claims. The case was closed.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a breach of contract claim arising from a right of first refusal in a 2004 agreement, under which plaintiffs Holston Investments and Albert Hernandez held the right to match any offer to purchase LanBox, Inc., a subsidiary of defendant LanLogistics Corp. Defendant sold LanBox along with two other companies to a third party for $3.5 million without first providing plaintiffs notice or the opportunity to match, as required by the agreement that remained in effect until April 2007. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's, concluding that the bundled sale during the agreement's term triggered the right of first refusal and that defendant breached it. The court found, however, that genuine issues of material fact remain for trial on LanBox's value at the time, the allocation of the purchase price, and plaintiffs' financial ability to complete the transaction on the same terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved patent infringement claims under two U.S. patents filed in the Southern District of Florida by Global Innovation Technology Holdings and IPAT against twelve software manufacturers. A related suit alleging infringement of the same patents had been filed earlier in the Eastern District of Texas by IPAT against different defendants. The court transferred the Florida action to the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), holding that the cases had substantial overlap in issues and parties that invoked the first-filed rule favoring the Texas forum, and that other public and private factors—including party convenience and trial efficiency—did not overcome that presumption.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Rosenthal v. Longchamp Coral Gables LLC, the plaintiff sued alleging a willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) after the defendant printed her credit card expiration date on a receipt despite truncating the card number. The court granted the motion to dismiss in part, holding that the allegations failed to plausibly establish willfulness under the recklessness standard from Safeco v. Burr and the pleading requirements of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, but permitted the plaintiff to amend the complaint. The court denied the motion to the extent it sought to declare FACTA unconstitutional, finding the statutory damages provisions neither unconstitutionally vague nor violative of due process as applied. The decision rested on analysis of FACTA's text, congressional clarification via the Credit and Debt Card Receipt Clarification Act, and persuasive authority from other courts upholding the statute.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the American Dental Association and individual dentists suing Wellpoint Health Networks and Blue Cross of California over alleged underpayments for out-of-network dental services provided to patients under ERISA-governed health plans. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants used a flawed database to calculate customary rates, breaching ERISA obligations in Count I, while Counts II and III asserted state-law claims for trade libel and tortious interference. The court denied dismissal of the ERISA claim for failure to exhaust remedies or pleading deficiencies and partially granted standing to the ADA only in a representative capacity for its members. It granted dismissal with prejudice of the state-law claims, finding they were preempted by ERISA. The core reasoning centered on ERISA's broad preemptive effect on state tort claims arising from plan administration and application of associational standing standards under Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Spechler v. Tobin, a former Broward County judge sued the Chief Judge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a reassignment letter to a satellite courthouse civil traffic docket deprived him of liberty interests, access to the courthouse, and his judicial position without due process, effectively forcing his resignation one business day later. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that Chief Judge Tobin was entitled to qualified immunity because reassigning judges to dockets and locations is within the Chief Judge's discretionary authority under Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. The court further held that the plaintiff lacked standing, as his voluntary resignation without pursuing available remedies in Florida courts severed any causal connection between the reassignment and his claimed injuries, and that sovereign immunity barred the state law claims.

civil rightsprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Brigitte Espinoza Ugaz, a surgeon traveling internationally from Peru to Miami, fell and injured her ankle while walking up an inoperable escalator at Miami International Airport shortly after her flight arrived. She sued American Airlines and Miami-Dade County, alleging negligence in maintaining the premises, failing to warn of hazards, and related claims. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that the Montreal Convention governs the claims arising from international air travel and that the incident did not qualify as an "accident" under the treaty, precluding recovery. Even assuming an accident or that the Convention did not apply, the court found no liability under negligence because the stationary escalator was not unreasonably dangerous, the defendants lacked notice of any issue, the condition was open and obvious, and any claim would more properly sound in products liability against other parties.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved healthcare providers such as chiropractors, podiatrists, and physical therapists suing Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, their association, and related entities in a class action, alleging a RICO conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud through software systems that reduced, delayed, and denied payments for covered services despite representations to the contrary. The court granted the defendants' joint motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to allege the conspiracy element and the predicate fraud acts with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), as it lacked specific details on the false representations, reliance, and each defendant's participation, after multiple prior amendments.

healthcarecriminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Pellon v. Business Representation International, Inc., 53 skycaps working at Miami International Airport sued their employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged minimum wage violations arising from improper tip credit notice, performance of non-skycap duties, and a two-dollar baggage service fee imposed by American Airlines that allegedly created an invalid tip pooling arrangement. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the FLSA claims, holding that the plaintiffs had received adequate notice of the tip credit, that the disputed tasks fell within skycap job duties, and that the service fee did not violate FLSA tip pooling rules. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law contract and wage claims and dismissed them without prejudice to refiling in state court, while denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory