John Richard Smoak jr

This Title VII case involved plaintiff Sharon O'Hara's claims that her supervisors at the University of West Florida subjected her to sexual harassment through inappropriate comments and advances, creating a hostile work environment, and that the university retaliated by sending her home to work remotely and declining to renew her grant-funded contract after she complained to HR and the EEOC. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the university's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim, finding O'Hara failed to establish a prima facie case because she had not shown protected activity or causation linking any complaint to the non-renewal. The court denied summary judgment on the sexual harassment claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms of employment. The decision rested on review of deposition excerpts, affidavits, and other summary judgment evidence without resolving disputed facts at this stage.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned the constitutionality of Florida Statute § 843.17, which criminalizes publishing a law enforcement officer's residence address or telephone number with malicious intent to obstruct or intimidate the officer. Plaintiff Robert Brayshaw was arrested under the statute after posting truthful, publicly available contact information about a Tallahassee police officer on a website, though the charges were later dismissed on procedural grounds. He then sued the City of Tallahassee and the State Attorney seeking damages and injunctive relief, arguing the law violated the First Amendment. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding the statute invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it regulates protected speech in a content-based manner that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The court permanently enjoined enforcement of the statute and awarded the plaintiff $25,000 in damages against the City.

free speechcriminal law

The case involved a plaintiff who sued the manufacturer of the generic drug phenytoin after developing Stevens-Johnson Syndrome following its use for epilepsy treatment. The plaintiff alleged negligence, strict liability, fraud, and other claims in an eight-count complaint. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the action was barred by Florida's four-year statute of limitations because the plaintiff discovered the likely cause of his injuries by September 2004 but did not file suit until October 2008. The court also concluded that the learned intermediary doctrine applied, as the prescribing physician did not rely on the drug labeling and was independently aware of the risks.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who alleged injury from taking a generic phenytoin drug manufactured by the defendants, resulting in a diagnosis of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome after use in 2004; the complaint asserted multiple claims including negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, unfair trade practices violations, and strict liability. The court ruled on defendants' partial motion to dismiss three counts under Rule 12(b)(6). It dismissed the breach of warranty count because Florida law requires privity of contract, which was not alleged. It also dismissed the unfair trade practices count because the relevant Florida statutes provide no private right of action and exclude personal injury claims. The court denied dismissal of the punitive damages count, finding that nine paragraphs of specific factual allegations in the complaint were sufficient to state a plausible claim under Florida law.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case involved a dispute between commercial property owner 316, Inc. and its insurer Maryland Casualty Company over the amount of loss from Hurricane Ivan damage in 2004. After the parties disagreed on the total loss, Maryland invoked the policy's appraisal process, an umpire issued an award, and Maryland paid it in full within thirty days. 316 then sued under Florida Statute § 624.155 alleging bad faith for failing to pay within sixty days of a Civil Remedy Notice and for additional amounts such as interest, unpaid DSI bills, and public adjuster fees. The court granted Maryland's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, holding that the appraisal award was binding, that Maryland satisfied its payment obligations under the policy and statute by paying promptly after the award, and that 316 could not recover additional damages or maintain claims not properly noticed.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a Florida public high school student who sued the local school board after the principal banned students from wearing or displaying t-shirts, armbands, stickers, or buttons with messages or symbols supporting acceptance and equal treatment of homosexuals, such as rainbows, pink triangles, and slogans like “Gay Pride” or “I Support My Gay Friends.” The court found that the principal had investigated and punished students for these expressions following an incident involving a lesbian student, including suspensions and directives to remove the items, which the student plaintiff claimed violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and against viewpoint discrimination. The court ruled that the school board's actions were unconstitutional, permanently enjoining the board from prohibiting such student expressions unless they materially and substantially disrupt school operations, and requiring notification to students and officials that the speech is permitted under reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The core reasoning relied on precedents like Tinker v. Des Moines, holding that schools cannot suppress student speech based on its content or viewpoint without evidence of substantial disruption, and that the banned messages here did not cause such disruption.

free speechcivil rights

In this diversity case, plaintiff 316, Inc. sued its insurer, Maryland Casualty Company, under Florida statutes §§ 626.9541 and 624.155, alleging bad-faith refusal to pay a claim for Hurricane Ivan damage to a commercial building and seeking punitive damages on the ground that the insurer's practices were willful, wanton, and reckless. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) as to the punitive-damages demand, arguing that the supporting allegations were merely conclusory and failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that the acts reflect a general business practice. Applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, the court held that the complaint did not plead enough specific facts, taken as true, to state a plausible claim for punitive damages under § 624.155(5). The court therefore entered judgment on the pleadings in the defendant's favor on that claim and denied the alternative request to bifurcate and stay as moot.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves judicial review of the denial of a claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act after the plaintiff applied in 2003 alleging disability from impairments including osteoarthritis, post-lymphoma status, wrist issues, and lumbar degenerative disc disease. The ALJ found the plaintiff not disabled and capable of her past relevant work as a sewing machine operator and cashier, a decision that became final when the Appeals Council denied review. The court concluded that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly in the evaluation of fibromyalgia as a severe impairment, the assessment of the plaintiff's subjective complaints and treating physician opinions, and the formulation of the residual functional capacity and hypothetical questions to the vocational expert. The district court therefore adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, reversed the Commissioner's decision, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In Gifford v. Thinking Outside, LLC, plaintiffs Stephen and Stephanie Gifford sued multiple defendants including Precision Pallet, Inc. for negligence and loss of consortium after a 1,512-pound greenhouse on a wooden pallet fell and injured Mr. Gifford at a Sam's Club in Florida. Precision Pallet, a Kansas corporation with no direct contacts to Florida, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found that while Florida's long-arm statute might apply, Precision Pallet lacked the minimum contacts required by due process because the pallet reached Florida through the unilateral actions of other defendants and pallets are not inherently hazardous products like the parachute device in cited precedent. The court therefore granted the motion and dismissed the claims against Precision Pallet.

procedure

The case involved a diversity action by the Army Aviation Heritage Foundation and Museum against Roger and Pauline Buis and their business for making allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiff's aircraft maintenance practices and operations, as well as violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Liability on both claims was established by partial summary judgment, leaving only the amount of damages for determination after a bench trial. The court reviewed Florida law on general damages (presumed from defamation per se), special damages (requiring proof of proximate pecuniary loss), and punitive damages, along with standards for attorney's fees under FDUTPA, while assessing the plaintiff's requests for $100,000 in general damages, $80,000 in special damages, and other relief against the evidence presented. It concluded that the requested amounts were not adequately supported and that nominal damages were available under the defamation claim.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Reheiser v. Terminix International Co., plaintiff Joseph Reheiser, a long-term branch manager at the pest control company, sued under the Florida Civil Rights Act after his termination, alleging harassment, discrimination based on a perceived disability (anxiety attacks for which he had taken medical leave), and retaliation for complaining about the harassment. Terminix moved for summary judgment, arguing that Reheiser was fired solely for refusing to sign a mandatory Arbitration Agreement required of all employees as a condition of continued employment. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the claims with prejudice, finding that Terminix articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination and that Reheiser failed to show pretext or that the company would not have fired him absent any alleged bias, as he was given multiple opportunities to sign the agreement before being let go.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Christy Mathis, an African-American woman employed as a teller and supervisor at SouthTrust/Wachovia bank, who alleged racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and related laws, citing instances of disparate discipline, denied promotions, and removal from a program after filing EEOC charges. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice. The core reasoning was that Mathis failed to establish a prima facie case for most claims due to lack of similarly situated comparators or sufficient evidence, and where a prima facie case might exist, the employer provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons such as policy violations that were not shown to be pretextual; additionally, the nine-month gap undermined the retaliation claim.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Jeff R. Davis, a Black police officer employed by the Panama City Police Department, who was suspended and terminated after a vehicle inspection uncovered a crack cocaine pipe and cocaine residue in a bag in his car; Davis admitted receiving the items from an unidentified woman but claimed he intended to test them and forgot to follow evidence procedures. He sued the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging racial discrimination in his termination. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence that the termination resulted from an official municipal policy or custom of racial discrimination, that the police chief lacked final policymaking authority for Monell liability purposes, and that statistical or comparator evidence did not support a discrimination claim. Davis's other claims, including retaliation, were either unpled or unsupported.

civil rights

This case involved a trademark and contract dispute between two unaffiliated restaurant chains with similar names, Fuddruckers and Fudpucker’s, concerning geographic restrictions on opening restaurants in the Destin-Fort Walton Beach area under their 1990 and 1995 agreements. The court granted partial summary judgment to Fudpucker’s on key issues, including that Fudpucker’s holds exclusive rights to its mark in that area pursuant to the agreements, that Fuddruckers breached the agreements by failing to attempt good-faith resolution, and that Fuddruckers is estopped from challenging Fudpucker’s use there; it dismissed Fuddruckers’ claims for declaratory relief, breach, and fraud. The court denied Fudpucker’s requests on issues such as oral assignment and abandonment but awarded it attorneys’ fees under the 1990 agreement. The core reasoning rested on interpretation of the parties’ prior settlement agreements, principles of estoppel, and the lack of evidence supporting Fuddruckers’ fraud allegations.

business & regulatoryproperty