Ursula Mancusi Ungaro

This case involved defendant Alexei Gomez's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his cell phone call logs after he was arrested for receiving a package containing cocaine. Law enforcement had conducted a controlled delivery of the package, arrested Gomez upon his pickup, and then reviewed the phone's recent call history without a warrant, asserting exigent circumstances due to potential data loss. The magistrate judge found no valid exigency, as modern cell phones retain data more reliably than older devices like pagers and records are also held by service providers, but recommended denying the motion because the search was not justified on that basis. The district judge adopted the report and denied the motion to suppress. The core reasoning centered on the lack of evidence showing an immediate risk of evidence destruction under Fourth Amendment standards.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a former Pharmaceutical Sales Representative (PSR) suing her employer, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiff worked in a team promoting prescription drugs to physicians in South Florida by providing information and samples but did not directly sell products to doctors or patients, as sales occurred through separate company channels. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the outside sales exemption did not apply because PSRs obtain only non-binding commitments from physicians who do not purchase the drugs themselves, and the administrative exemption did not apply because the plaintiff's duties lacked sufficient discretion or managerial authority, as her territory, messaging, and budget were tightly controlled by the company. The court reserved judgment on liquidated damages and the statute of limitations.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involves wrongful death and negligence claims brought by Texas plaintiffs, as personal representatives of two decedents, against a Florida parasailing operator and various Spanish hotel and resort companies after the decedents died during a parasailing excursion on the Mayan Riviera in Mexico in 2008. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to safely operate the activity and were vicariously liable for the incident that caused the deaths. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that Mexico is the more convenient forum because the accident occurred there, the majority of evidence and witnesses are located in Mexico or Spain, private interest factors strongly favor dismissal, and public interest factors also support trying the case abroad, with defendants agreeing to submit to Mexican jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Greentree Financial Group, a Florida corporation, alleged that defendants Long Fortune and BTHC breached a service agreement related to consulting services for a reverse takeover, and that defendant Halter Financial Investments tortiously interfered with that agreement. Defendant Halter moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction among other grounds. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claim against Halter, finding that Greentree failed to establish personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute or the Due Process Clause, as Halter submitted an uncontroverted affidavit showing no substantial contacts with Florida.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a negligence lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania residents Steven and Carmen Prophet against Delaware and Jamaican corporate defendants operating the Grand Lido Negril resort in Jamaica, stemming from Steven Prophet's 2011 injury caused by a defective power rack in the resort's fitness center; the claims included negligence, failure to warn, and violations of Pennsylvania consumer protection law, plus loss of consortium. Defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing Jamaica was a more appropriate venue, and one defendant additionally sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the forum non conveniens motion after finding Jamaica an adequate alternative forum with jurisdiction over the parties, determining that private interest factors such as the location of the accident, witnesses, and evidence strongly favored Jamaica despite some deference to the plaintiffs' forum choice, and concluding that public interest factors also tipped the balance toward trial there. The action was dismissed with instructions to refile in Jamaica.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned South Florida Equitable Fund LLC's challenge to the City of Miami's Old Zoning Ordinance, which prohibited new outdoor advertising signs except through settlement agreements tied to net reductions in existing signs, alleging unconstitutional application under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the plaintiff filed suit, the City enacted a New Zoning Ordinance that superseded the old provisions, banned new billboards, and established rules for relocation and reconstruction agreements under Florida statute. The court granted summary judgment to the City, holding the claims moot because the new ordinance replaced the challenged rules. Core reasoning relied on precedents like National II and Tanner, which treat legislative supersession as mooting prior challenges, distinguishing it from bad-faith executive changes in cases like Harrell.

free speechbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

In Eke v. Firstbank Florida, a tenant sued a bank and its law firm after the bank foreclosed on the landlord's property and the firm demanded that the tenant pay rent directly to the bank while threatening to change the apartment locks. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and common-law abuse of process. The court dismissed the claims on the ground that the defendants were not debt collectors under the statutes, because the rent was not in default when the bank acquired the right to collect it through foreclosure. The court further held that the plaintiff had no protected security interest in the apartment that would support a claim under the FDCPA's enforcement-of-security-interests provision.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved three Indian citizens employed as stateroom attendants by Celebrity Cruises whose terms were governed by a collective bargaining agreement with their union. The plaintiffs demanded arbitration over the sharing of gratuities with other staff but the arbitrator dismissed the claims for failure to first exhaust the CBA's grievance procedures. The plaintiffs then filed suit seeking to vacate the arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and the Florida International Arbitration Act, citing defenses including their status as seafarers and alleged concealment of grievance rules. Celebrity moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Chapter 1 of the FAA and the FIAA did not apply and that the Convention claims did not raise U.S. public policy concerns. The court applied the plausibility standard from Iqbal and Twombly and began its analysis by addressing the applicability of the FAA and Florida statute to the arbitration award.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Peterson v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., a passenger sued the cruise line for injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of the ship's doctor and nurses while preparing him for medical evacuation from the vessel. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that maritime law precludes vicarious liability for onboard medical staff, who are independent contractors under the ticket contract. The court granted the motion, dismissing the actual agency claims with prejudice based on the Barbetta precedent and the contract language stating that medical personnel work for the passenger, not the carrier, and dismissing the apparent agency and voluntarily-assumed-duty claims without prejudice for lack of sufficient factual allegations showing a breach separate from medical negligence. The decision applied federal pleading standards and general maritime law to the claims of vicarious liability and assumed duty.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved De Beers Centenary AG's petition to vacate an arbitration award purportedly issued in favor of pro se respondent John-Robert Hasson, a federal prisoner, for over $6.6 billion arising from a claimed dispute related to a class-action settlement. Hasson had arranged for a non-party to act as arbitrator after a prior similar award was dismissed by a D.C. court for lack of any valid arbitration agreement, and De Beers had repeatedly stated it never agreed to arbitrate or signed any such agreement. The court granted the petition to vacate, holding that no enforceable arbitration agreement existed under the Federal Arbitration Act, the arbitrator therefore exceeded his authority by issuing the award, and De Beers could not be bound by default or unilateral notices. The decision relied on the absence of mutual consent, prior judicial findings, and FAA precedents requiring a valid agreement to arbitrate.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Collado v. Florida Cleanex, Inc., the plaintiff sued his former employers, a commercial cleaning company and its owner, for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the FLSA did not apply because the company lacked enterprise coverage due to insufficient interstate commerce activity. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the company's purchase of cleaning products from local South Florida suppliers did not satisfy the requirement that employees handle materials previously moved in interstate commerce, and that other contacts such as limited out-of-state calls and payments were either personal or insufficient to establish coverage.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute over whether an insurer, Travelers, had a duty to defend and indemnify its insured, Falcon, under a professional liability policy in an underlying lawsuit brought by Zurich. Zurich alleged that Falcon breached its agency agreement and fiduciary duties by improperly withholding insurance premiums based on an unproven contingent commission arrangement tied to business profitability. The court granted summary judgment to Travelers, denying Falcon's cross-motion, and held that no duty to defend or indemnify existed. The core reasoning was that the underlying claims directly triggered the policy's Contingent Commission Exclusion, which barred coverage for disputes arising from contingent or profit-based commissions, as the policy language and facts alleged in the Zurich complaint made clear.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Julieann Rico, former School Board Attorney for Miami-Dade County, sued the School Board after her termination, alleging breach of contract, defamation, abuse of process, and a violation of her due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The School Board removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment, arguing that Rico's employment was at-will under the contract's termination provisions and that she received adequate process. Rico cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the due process claim, asserting a protected property interest in continued employment. The court found that the contract's provisions for termination for cause or no cause made the employment terminable at will, creating no property interest, and that the School Board had provided notice and an opportunity to respond in any event. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to the School Board on the § 1983 claim and addressed the remaining state-law claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved the United States seeking to reduce to judgment unpaid federal income tax assessments against Stephen Kneapler for 1995 and jointly against the Kneaplers for 2004, after conceding the 1993 assessment. The Kneaplers moved to amend their answers to add affirmative defenses of payment, offset, and equitable recoupment related to the 1993 year, and to strike certain declarations supporting the government's summary judgment motion; the government moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion to amend, finding no good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) because the defendants failed to show diligence in seeking to modify the scheduling order deadline. It also denied the motion to strike, holding the declarations admissible as based on personal knowledge and proper foundation. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, concluding there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the validity or amount of the remaining tax assessments.

taxesprocedure

The case concerned a disabled individual with cerebral palsy and other impairments who visited a clinical laboratory for a required blood test but was denied access with her certified service animal, publicly humiliated, and forced to have the procedure performed in a car, allegedly causing injury. The plaintiff, acting as guardian, asserted an ADA claim along with Florida state-law counts for negligent supervision and training of employees that resulted in the discriminatory treatment and unsafe blood draw. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the three negligence counts under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that Florida common law does not recognize negligent supervision or training claims predicated on an underlying ADA violation and that the medical-negligence aspects lacked the statutory pre-suit notice required by Fla. Stat. § 766.106.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns the proper amount of reimbursement an auto insurer must pay a medical clinic for MRI services provided to an insured under Florida's No-Fault/PIP statute. The clinic performed an MRI and billed State Farm, which paid a reduced sum after applying Medicare's Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) cap to the technical component of the service under the 2008 amendments to Fla. Stat. § 627.736(5)(a). The court analyzed the statutory text requiring reimbursement at 80% of 200% of the allowable amount under the participating physicians schedule of Medicare Part B for 2007 (or the current schedule if higher) and concluded that the No-Fault Statute incorporates only that specific schedule, not Medicare's separate OPPS reductions or other limitations. It therefore held that State Farm's application of the OPPS cap was improper and resolved the cross-motions for summary judgment on that basis.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

Plaintiff Gawin, a Polish citizen employed as a seaman on a vessel operated by Defendant Princess Cruise Lines, filed suit alleging Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, failure to provide maintenance and cure, and failure to treat after sustaining injuries on the job. Defendant moved to compel arbitration under the employment agreement, which required binding arbitration in Bermuda pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and specified that Bermuda law would govern disputes. Plaintiff opposed the motion on public policy grounds under Thomas v. Carnival Corp. and argued the clause was unenforceable due to prohibitive costs. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration, holding that Defendant's stipulation to the application of U.S. law in arbitration eliminated the public policy concerns and that Plaintiff's cost assertions were insufficient to invalidate the agreement.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Gomez v. Pfizer, Inc., plaintiffs sued drug manufacturers McNeil-PPC and Johnson & Johnson after plaintiff Yamile Gomez developed Stevens-Johnson syndrome, alleging that her use of Motrin and Tylenol (along with Zoloft) caused the condition. The claims against these defendants included negligence and strict liability regarding the pain relievers, plus a derivative loss-of-consortium claim. The court granted the motion to dismiss those counts without prejudice, holding that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to plausibly state a duty owed by the defendants or to identify any specific product defect, and that the negligence and strict-liability theories were improperly commingled. The court applied the Iqbal and Twombly pleading standards, noting that threadbare recitals of elements and conclusory statements do not suffice.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from the 2003 Free Trade Area of the Americas summit in Miami, where labor unions including the AFL-CIO obtained permits for assemblies and protests but alleged that City police interfered with their events through heavy presence, restricted access to venues, and other actions that violated their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs sued the City and police officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming supervisory liability and failure to train or supervise officers regarding First Amendment protections. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on these claims, holding that plaintiffs failed to show a genuine issue of material fact on deliberate indifference by the municipality or a causal link to the individual defendants' supervision, as required to establish liability.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

This case concerns the Miccosukee Tribe's challenge to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' approval of Alternative 3.2.2.a for the Modified Water Deliveries Project, which involves relocating part of the Tamiami Trail and building a bridge in Everglades National Park. The Tribe alleged violations of NEPA, including failure to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement, and violations of FACA by an advisory group used in the planning process, seeking to enjoin implementation of the plan. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, citing the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which directed the Corps to immediately construct Alternative 3.2.2.a notwithstanding any other provision of law. The court granted the motion, holding that the Act rendered the Tribe's claims moot because Congress had mandated the project's construction without regard to NEPA or FACA, depriving the court of authority to grant the requested injunctive or declaratory relief.

environmentfederal power