Mary Stenson Scriven

The case Lebron v. Wilkins concerns a challenge to Florida Statute Section 414.0652, which mandates suspicionless drug testing for applicants seeking Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits. Plaintiff Luis Lebrón, who applied for these benefits to support his child, refused the test on Fourth Amendment grounds, claiming it constituted an unreasonable search without individualized suspicion. The court granted a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the statute against the plaintiff, finding that the mandatory testing likely violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches as established in relevant Supreme Court precedents. The court denied class certification without prejudice based on the state's agreement not to enforce the law against similarly situated individuals pending full resolution. The reasoning centered on the lack of a special need justifying suspicionless testing in this welfare context, distinguishing it from permissible categories of such searches.

civil rights

The United States sued Edward Sumpolec, who sold radiant barriers and liquid coatings through his business Energy Conservation Specialists, for violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and the R-value Rule through deceptive advertising claims about product effectiveness and energy savings. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment on liability, finding that the defendant made unsubstantiated R-value and energy savings claims in online ads, failed to provide required fact sheets or disclosures, and did not retain supporting records for three years. These conclusions rested on undisputed facts from the complaint, deposition testimony, and advertisements, as the defendant filed no response to the motion and presented no contrary evidence. The ruling addressed all five counts but left determination of civil penalties for a later proceeding.

business & regulatory

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which an accounting firm and one of its partners sued their professional liability insurer after it refused to defend or indemnify them against a malpractice claim brought by longtime clients regarding allegedly negligent tax work. The court granted summary judgment to the insurer on cross-motions, holding that no coverage existed under either the 2005-2006 claims-made policy or the renewed 2006-2007 policy. The reasoning was that the firm failed to timely report the matter during the first policy period and that, prior to the second policy's inception, the insureds had a reasonable basis to believe the clients' complaints might give rise to a claim, triggering the policy's prior-knowledge exclusion.

business & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff who sued her former employer, Club Paris, LLC, and its principal for gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as negligent supervision and civil battery. After the defendants defaulted, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff on the remaining claims, and a jury awarded her $77,500 in damages. The plaintiff then moved for attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party. The court granted the motion, awarding $20,912.50 in fees calculated under the lodestar method using a reasonable hourly rate and documented hours, plus $425 in taxable costs. The decision rested on Title VII's fee-shifting provision, Supreme Court precedent defining prevailing parties, and Eleventh Circuit standards for reasonable fees and costs.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a plaintiff's attempt to collect on a $1.1 million default judgment against a former Orlando police officer for sexual molestation of a minor, by seeking coverage under the city's liability insurance policy issued by North River Insurance Company. The plaintiff sued the insurer for breach of contract after it refused payment, claiming the officer's acts fell within policy coverage for occurrences in the course of employment. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, finding no coverage because the policy's terms clearly excluded acts outside the scope of employment, intentional misconduct, and other specified exclusions, with the officer's criminal conduct not qualifying as insured activity. The court interpreted the unambiguous policy language under Florida law and did not reach the insurer's alternative late-notice defense.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilitycriminal law

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by James Guzman, who was convicted in Florida state court of first-degree murder and armed robbery and sentenced to death after a bench trial. Guzman raised claims under Giglio v. United States and Brady v. Maryland, alleging that the prosecution presented false testimony from key witnesses Martha Cronin and Detective Allison Sylvester about any deals or consideration given to them, and failed to disclose exculpatory evidence regarding those witnesses. The district court granted the petition in part, finding that the false testimony was material and had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict, entitling Guzman to relief on those claims, while denying relief on the remaining claims, some of which were procedurally barred or failed to meet the standards of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The court reasoned that the undisclosed information undermined the credibility of the witnesses whose testimony was central to establishing Guzman's guilt, and that the state courts' rejection of the claims was contrary to clearly established federal law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a plaintiff who purchased a lot in a Florida resort development and obtained financing from SunTrust Mortgage, later suing multiple defendants including the seller, real estate companies, and SunTrust over alleged misrepresentations about property value, marketing efforts, memberships, and lending practices, as well as claims of fraud, breach of duties, conspiracy, and violations of state and federal statutes. The court addressed SunTrust's motion to dismiss various counts in the amended complaint under federal pleading standards. It granted the motion with prejudice as to claims for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation, granted it without prejudice as to constructive fraud, denied it as to a statutory violation claim under Fla. Stat. § 494.0025, and granted it in part and denied it in part as to civil conspiracy claims while requiring the plaintiff to show cause regarding remaining claims against another defendant. The rulings were based on the sufficiency of factual allegations to state plausible claims and the particularity required for fraud-based causes of action.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In Loos v. Club Paris, LLC, the plaintiff sued her former employer, a nightclub, and its owner/general manager for gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, negligent hiring and supervision, and civil battery, alleging repeated unwelcome sexual advances by the supervisor that led to her demotion and resignation after she refused them. The defendants initially answered but later defaulted when the company failed to retain new counsel after its original attorney withdrew and the individual defendant failed to appear for deposition or participate in pretrial filings, leading the court to strike their answers and enter defaults. The district court granted the plaintiff's motion for default judgment on the discrimination, negligent supervision, and battery claims, initially denied it on retaliation, but on reconsideration found the complaint adequately stated a retaliation claim based on opposition to the harassment and the resulting demotion, entering judgment for the plaintiff on all counts while setting unliquidated damages for a jury trial.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case began as a state-court foreclosure action by Bank of New York Trustee against Richard Brunsman and others; Brunsman filed a counterclaim and third-party complaints, after which defaults were entered against the counter-defendant and third-party defendants for failing to respond. Following removal to federal court, those parties moved to vacate the clerk's entries of default, and Brunsman moved to strike an exhibit attached to that motion. The court granted the motion to vacate, finding the defaults against CWALT void for lack of service, those against BoNY Trustee and BoNY void due to a prior motion filing, and those against CFC, CHL, and CHLS properly set aside under Rule 55(c) for good cause based on prompt correction, colorable defenses, and lack of prejudice. The court denied the motion to strike, holding the exhibit relevant to showing a meritorious defense, and ordered Brunsman to complete service within ninety days.

procedureproperty

This case involves a lawsuit by Robert Swofford and his wife against Seminole County sheriff's deputies William Morris Jr. and Donald Remus, along with Sheriff Donald Eslinger, stemming from the deputies shooting Swofford on his property while pursuing two car burglary suspects in April 2006. The plaintiffs brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force and unlawful entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as well as state-law claims including battery and negligence. Defendants Morris and Remus moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims and statutory immunity under Florida law on the state claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that disputed facts about the encounter prevented a legal determination that the deputies' actions were reasonable or that they were entitled to immunity as a matter of law.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves claims by Robert Swofford and his wife against Seminole County sheriff's deputies William Morris and Ronald Remus, as well as Sheriff Donald Eslinger, arising from the April 2006 shooting of Swofford on his property during a pursuit of burglary suspects; the claims include excessive force and unlawful entry under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with state-law claims for battery, negligence, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs moved for spoliation sanctions, alleging that defendants destroyed or failed to preserve key evidence such as Deputy Remus's laptop, SCSO emails from April 2006 to June 2007, and the deputies' radios, guns, and uniforms, despite receiving preservation letters and notices of litigation starting in August 2006. The court granted the motion after finding that defendants acted in bad faith by failing to issue litigation holds or take other steps to suspend routine destruction of evidence, despite their duty to preserve it. As sanctions, the court awarded plaintiffs their attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the spoliation, to be determined separately, and imposed sanctions against the sheriff's office general counsel under the court's inherent authority and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a Florida prisoner suing two police detectives and an assistant state attorney under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure, Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection, and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 242. The claims arose from a 2003 burglary investigation of the plaintiff's home that uncovered allegations of his sexual activity and drug involvement with minors, leading to his arrest, charges, and guilty plea; he asserted the defendants refused to prosecute the juvenile burglars, improperly removed items and recorded conversations, conspired to bring charges, and withheld evidence. The court granted the detectives' motion for summary judgment and the prosecutor's motion to dismiss, dismissing the entire action. The decision rested on grounds including the statute of limitations, absolute immunity for the prosecutor, and failure of the claims against the other defendants.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In White v. Purdue Pharma, Inc., the plaintiff sued under Florida's Private Whistleblower Act, claiming her termination resulted from objecting to or refusing to participate in what she believed were the defendant's illegal activities, policies, or practices. The parties disputed the required burden of proof for establishing a prima facie case, specifically whether the plaintiff must demonstrate an actual violation of law or only a reasonable, good-faith belief that a violation occurred. The court held that the statute's plain language requires proof of an actual violation as part of the protected activity element, distinguishing it from the public-sector whistleblower statute and Title VII precedents that incorporate a reasonable-belief standard. This interpretation follows from the absence of qualifying language like "suspected violation" in the private-sector provision and aims to balance employee protections with employer interests without expanding the statute beyond its terms.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a plaintiff suing her employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Florida Whistleblower Act for unpaid overtime and retaliatory discharge after complaining about wages, seeking economic damages plus emotional distress. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that emotional distress damages are unavailable under the FLSA retaliation provision and were not pled in the complaint. The court denied the motion without prejudice, reasoning that the FLSA's provision for legal or equitable relief to effectuate full compensation, as interpreted in Eleventh Circuit precedent like Snapp v. Unlimited Concepts, permits recovery of mental anguish damages in appropriate cases. The court also allowed amendment of the complaint to add the emotional distress request, noting no prejudice to the defendant.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case arose after a high school student was fatally shot with a handgun he had brought onto campus, prompting his parents to sue the school board, principal, sheriff, and school resource officer under the Gun-Free Schools Act, substantive and procedural due process claims, and state wrongful death theories. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss and for qualified immunity stays, focusing on whether the defendants had a constitutional duty to protect the student from harm. It concluded that no special relationship existed between the school officials and the student, nor did the officials affirmatively create or enhance the danger, so the federal constitutional claims failed as a matter of law. The court dismissed those federal claims while declining to reach the state-law issues or qualified immunity questions once the underlying constitutional violations were found absent.

civil rightsgunstorts & liabilityprocedure

In Colon v. Environmental Technologies, Inc., plaintiff Glorimar Colon sued her former employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that a coworker subjected her to a sexually hostile work environment through offensive comments and gestures, that the employer failed to stop the harassment, and that she was constructively discharged. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the conduct was not based on gender, was not severe or pervasive, and did not support employer liability or a constructive discharge claim. The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims with prejudice, finding that the alleged harassment was either not gender-based or not sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of employment, that the coworker had no authority to affect employment, and that the plaintiff had not shown she was forced to resign. The court also noted that the employer had taken some remedial steps, such as meetings and instructions for the coworker to stay away.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case was a Commodity Futures Trading Commission enforcement action against introducing broker R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., its owner Raymond Fitzgerald, and several employees, alleging violations of commodities regulations in the solicitation and management of customer options accounts. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for all defendants on every count. The court’s reasoning rested on findings that the firm maintained adequate risk-disclosure procedures compliant with 17 C.F.R. § 33.7, exercised reasonable supervision over traders, based recommendations on legitimate market analysis, and did not make fraudulent statements or omissions to customers.

business & regulatory

This case involves an African-American mechanic who sued his employer, U.S. Airways, alleging racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliatory termination under Title VII after his firing in November 1996, claiming he was treated differently due to his race and in retaliation for EEOC complaints. The defendant maintained that the termination followed an investigation into the plaintiff's alleged attempt to steal company batteries and associated acts of dishonesty and insubordination. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained in dispute regarding the theft incident, the investigation process, witness observations, and whether the discipline was pretextual or racially motivated. The opinion noted that an arbitration decision finding just cause for termination was not binding on the Title VII claims and did not resolve the factual disputes.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure