James D. Whittemore

The case involved two foster children in the custody of Florida's Department of Children and Families (DCF) who, along with a proposed class, sued DCF, Hillsborough Kids, Inc. (HKI), and other state and private entities over alleged systemic problems in the Hillsborough County foster care system, including frequent placement changes, improper administration of psychotropic medications, and inadequate adoption efforts; the complaint asserted 20 counts seeking injunctive relief, damages, and other remedies under federal and state statutes, tort theories, and contract claims. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the 73-page amended complaint but allowed leave to amend. The core reasoning was that the complaint constituted an impermissible "shotgun" pleading with excessive length, numerous counts, and improper incorporation of allegations that prevented the court from identifying and evaluating the specific claims against each defendant.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involves Strategic Defense International, Inc.'s petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate its criminal conviction, alongside its president, for conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit bribery and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371, which had been affirmed on appeal. The court denied the petition. The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy of last resort available only for errors of the most fundamental character that render the proceeding itself irregular and invalid, such as certain factual errors material to the validity of the legal process, and does not encompass claims of newly discovered evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, Brady violations, insufficient evidence, or ineffective assistance based on counsel's tactical decisions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Sound Surgical Technologies seeking a preliminary injunction against Dr. Rubinstein and his medical practice for allegedly continuing to use the VASER and LIPOSELECTION trademarks in multiple domain names after their licensing agreement expired or without required approval. The court granted the motion in part after considering affidavits and arguments at a hearing. The core reasoning focused on the License and Use Agreement's terms requiring prior approval for domain registrations and other uses of the marks, evidence that the domains directed internet traffic to the defendant's website advertising competing services, and the likelihood of consumer confusion supporting claims of trademark infringement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Bacelli's claims that defendants MFP, Inc. and St. Joseph's Hospital violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by sending collection letters demanding payment on a hospital debt while she was in bankruptcy, after discharge, and while represented by counsel. The district court approved and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. It denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability and St. Joseph's motion for summary judgment, but granted MFP's motion in part. The core reasoning centered on the lack of evidence that MFP had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing or legal representation until after the relevant letters were sent, which precluded liability under provisions of the FCCPA requiring such knowledge, along with analysis of FDCPA prohibitions on false representations about debt status during bankruptcy proceedings.

business & regulatory

The case involved the Federal Trade Commission suing RCA Credit Services, LLC and its owner Rick Lee Crosby for violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act based on claims that the company made misleading statements to consumers about rapidly improving credit scores through associations with positive credit lines from unrelated parties and removal of negative information, along with improper billing and disclosure failures. The district court granted the FTC's motion for summary judgment in part against the defendants after finding the representations deceptive and the evidence of violations undisputed, including from the company's websites, phone scripts, and consumer interactions. The ruling addressed liability under both statutes, entered a permanent injunction against further violations, and awarded monetary relief measured by consumer losses, while disregarding responses filed on behalf of the corporate defendant without counsel.

business & regulatory

The case involved a Section 8 housing assistance recipient challenging the local Housing Authority's termination of her benefits, based on claims that an unauthorized individual was residing in her unit, supported only by police reports from an arrest. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction, arguing insufficient evidence and lack of due process in the informal hearing where she could not cross-examine witnesses. The court granted the injunction, holding that the Housing Authority failed to establish a prima facie case under applicable HUD regulations because the police reports were internally inconsistent and did not prove residency, meaning the plaintiff bore no burden to rebut the allegations. The decision rested on regulatory requirements for terminations and precedents like Basco v. Machin requiring sufficient initial evidence from the agency.

federal powerprocedurecivil rights

In this case, insurance companies sued an employee leasing company to recover unpaid premiums under workers' compensation and employers liability policies, while the defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract alleging that the plaintiffs failed to apply a required premium credit under the Florida Contracting Classification Premium Adjustment Program as mandated by Florida law and the policies. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the counterclaim count challenging the premium calculation. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and denied the defendant's, holding that the defendant was required but failed to exhaust its administrative remedies under Section 627.371, Florida Statutes, before filing suit on that count. The reasoning centered on Florida statutes requiring insurers to adhere to filed rating plans and mandating administrative review for disputes over premium rates and adjustments.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Barry Oppenheim sued defendant I.C. System, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, along with a claim for invasion of privacy, arising from repeated collection calls made over three months to recover funds PayPal had reversed after a fraudulent transaction in the sale of Oppenheim's laptop. Oppenheim had refused to repay PayPal after the buyer funded the transaction fraudulently, leading PayPal to retain I.C. System as collector. The court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment, which argued that the obligation was not a qualifying debt under the statutes and that the facts did not support an invasion of privacy claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying the statutory definition of debt and Florida precedent on intrusion upon seclusion to assess the frequency and nature of the calls.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a Hernando County-based ground transportation operator who sought to provide round-trip services picking up passengers in Hillsborough County without obtaining a local certificate and permit from the Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission. The plaintiff argued that the Commission's requirements were preempted by federal law under 49 U.S.C. § 14501, specifically the provision exempting charter bus transportation from state and local regulation of operating authority, and that the luxury transportation service rule applied to his minivan was preempted as it related to the transportation of property. The court granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff's 15-passenger vehicle did not constitute charter bus transportation and that the luxury rule did not have a significant impact on price, route, or service. The core reasoning focused on statutory definitions of vehicles and transportation services, the text and purpose of the federal preemption provisions, and the absence of evidence showing substantial effects on property transportation.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a former employee's FLSA retaliation claim against the Florida Department of Health after she complained about alleged wage violations. The district court granted the state's motion to dismiss, holding that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the suit in federal court. The court reasoned that Congress lacked authority to abrogate state immunity for FLSA claims under either the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Florida's acceptance of federal funds did not constitute a knowing waiver because the FLSA is not a federal anti-discrimination statute that conditions funding on immunity waiver under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case concerned a dispute in the bankruptcy of J.H. Investment Services, Inc., over Michael Zuppardo's unrecorded equitable interest in a condominium unit he had purchased from the debtor under an installment contract that left title in the debtor's name. The debtor sold the unit (along with others) to BC Properties, prompting Zuppardo to seek recovery of the unit or sale proceeds in an interpleader action that was removed to bankruptcy court; the trustee cross-claimed to avoid Zuppardo's interest. The bankruptcy court granted the trustee summary judgment under 11 U.S.C. § 544, approved a settlement quieting title in BC Properties, dismissed Zuppardo's related cross-claims, and denied reconsideration. The district court affirmed all orders, holding that Zuppardo had not demonstrated reversible error in the avoidance of his unrecorded interest or in the handling of the settlement and motions. The appeal was limited to properly noticed orders, and no new evidence or authority justified disturbing the bankruptcy court's rulings.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Monique Garavito alleging that the City of Tampa terminated her employment as a police officer due to her epilepsy and failed to accommodate her condition, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that Garavito was not regarded as disabled under the statutes because she was only deemed unfit for the specific position of police officer based on medical evaluations, not a broad class of jobs, and that no reasonable accommodations were possible for essential functions such as high-speed driving and weapon use.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved owners of a bait and tackle shop who painted a marine-themed mural on their building wall and later displayed a banner with the text of the First Amendment, after which the City of Clearwater issued violation notices under its sign and banner ordinances. Plaintiffs sued, claiming the ordinances violated their First Amendment rights both facially and as applied. The court granted a preliminary injunction on the as-applied claim, enjoining the city from requiring removal of the mural or banner or from prosecuting related violations. The core reasoning was that the mural and banner constituted non-commercial speech protected by the First Amendment, the city's application of the sign code was content-based, and it failed to satisfy strict scrutiny.

free speechcivil rights

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's approval of a compromise settlement in a long-running Chapter 7 proceeding involving debtor Wolf Arbin Weinhold. Weinhold's primary asset was an 80% limited partnership interest in Wolfs Lair Ltd., which owned North Carolina real property; after the trustee sold that interest to Carolina Preservation Partners, Inc. (controlled by Douglas Smith), the case was reopened when Weinhold acquired the remaining 20% general partnership interest, leading the trustee to pursue claims against Weinhold, CPP, and Smith. The proposed compromise created a new LLC to serve as general partner, issued promissory notes and mortgages on the property, and transferred interests back to Weinhold, all without CPP or Smith's consent. The district court vacated the bankruptcy court's orders approving the compromise and denying rehearing, holding that the settlement improperly authorized the use of partnership assets to satisfy the debtor's individual obligations in violation of the partnership agreement and Florida law, that the bankruptcy court failed to make required findings or hold an evidentiary hearing on key issues like jurisdiction over the property and consistency with the partnership's purpose, and that approval constituted an abuse of discretion.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involves a pro se federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a Florida inmate challenging his 1996 convictions for two counts of DUI manslaughter and two counts of DUI causing serious bodily injury, along with related sentencing enhancements. The court addressed the timeliness of the petition under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations, noting that claims attacking the original conviction were time-barred while later resentencing claims could proceed, and evaluated multiple claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel under the Strickland standard. Applying highly deferential review to state court findings, the court denied relief on all grounds, determining that counsel's performance was not deficient or that no prejudice resulted, and that sentencing points for severe victim injury were supported by the record without Apprendi error. The petition was dismissed in full after consideration of supplemental arguments on victim injury scoring.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an ancillary receivership action brought by Burton Wiand, appointed as receiver in an SEC enforcement proceeding against Howard Waxenberg's entities, to recover from Zelda Waxenberg payments she received from her late husband's operations. The receiver alleged that the transfers—consisting of return of principal, false profits, and other household expenses—were fraudulent under Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and unjustly enriched Mrs. Waxenberg, seeking to redistribute the funds pro rata to defrauded investors. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and to exclude opposing expert testimony on issues including the existence of a Ponzi scheme, Mrs. Waxenberg's good faith, and whether she provided reasonably equivalent value. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part while denying the remaining motions, finding genuine issues of material fact on key elements of the claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a copyright infringement action in which plaintiff Thornton alleges that theater programs for the musical production Menopause the Musical reproduced substantial portions of his copyrighted trivia quiz, The Official Baby Boomer Qualifying Exam, without permission. The court addressed cross-motions for partial and full summary judgment, along with related motions to exclude expert testimony and strike witness disclosures. It examined potential defenses including implied license arising from the plaintiff's website postings and the applicable three-year statute of limitations for copyright claims, concluding that an implied license requires specific evidence of authorization and that the limitations period runs from the last infringing act. The opinion applies established copyright principles to determine whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment.

propertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Karen Keeler, a records technician employed by the Florida Department of Health, alleged that the defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to transfer her to a less stressful position as an accommodation for her disabilities and by retaliating against her after she requested the transfer. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's opposition. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff had not disclosed her disabilities at the time of her transfer request and had not shown that her impairments substantially limited a major life activity such as working, as her claimed difficulties were limited to a single position rather than a class of jobs.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns a patent holder's action seeking declaratory judgment that a medical device under development by Monteris Medical infringes his patent. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that no actual controversy existed under the Declaratory Judgment Act because the FDA approval process for the Class III device had not begun and was estimated to be at least three years away, meaning the final design and commercialization timeline remained uncertain and any ruling would be advisory. The opinion emphasized that the immediacy and reality requirements were not met given the potential for design changes during regulatory review and the absence of imminent infringing activity.

procedurehealthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case was an excessive force lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff Harold Anderson alleged that Tampa police officer Peter Bucher violated his Fourth Amendment rights by performing a takedown during a DUI arrest after a traffic stop. The court granted the officer's motion for summary judgment. Even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Anderson—including his claim that he was attempting to comply despite a bad shoulder and was not resisting—the court concluded that the force used was objectively reasonable under the circumstances of the stop, the plaintiff's signs of intoxication, his refusal of field sobriety tests, and the officer's perception of resistance, consistent with the Fourth Amendment standard from Graham v. Connor. The court also dismissed the related Fourteenth Amendment claim as improperly categorized.

civil rights