This case concerns Flava Works, Inc., which leases a multifamily home in a Miami R-4 residential zone to operate CocoDorm.com, a website that streams live video of residents engaging in sexual activity. The City of Miami cited the property owner and Flava Works for violating zoning rules that prohibit operating a business in a residential district and restrict adult entertainment establishments. After the Eleventh Circuit held that the activity qualified as a business (though not an adult entertainment establishment) and remanded the remaining claims, the district court granted the city's renewed motion for summary judgment. The court rejected the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges—including First Amendment overbreadth and narrow tailoring claims, equal protection, regulatory taking, and dormant commerce clause arguments—finding that the zoning ordinances applied validly to the commercial use of the property and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge provisions that did not affect them.
business & regulatoryfree speechpropertycivil rights
This case involves a dispute between Zaki Kulaibee Establishment, a Saudi Arabian corporation, and several Florida defendants over the performance of a consignment sales agreement for aircraft parts and a subsequent settlement agreement. The plaintiff alleged breaches including failure to provide reports, improper handling and sale of goods, and failure to share proceeds or insurance claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing some claims such as equitable accounting against most defendants and certain fraudulent transfer claims, while allowing others like breach of contract, conversion against some parties, and most FUFTA claims to proceed, based on the sufficiency of evidence and legal requirements for each cause of action.
This case is a diversity action in which Hobirn, Inc. sued Aerotek, Inc. for negligent hiring, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, alleging that Aerotek failed to conduct promised background checks on a contract employee (Wayne Guthrie) who later stole from Hobirn after being hired directly. Aerotek had earlier obtained a default judgment against Hobirn in state court for unpaid fees under the services agreement. Aerotek moved to dismiss on grounds including the compulsory counterclaim rule, contractual disclaimers, failure to state a claim, and the economic loss doctrine. The court denied the motion, holding that the claims were not procedurally barred, that Hobirn had pled sufficient facts to show a duty and plausible negligence independent of the contract, and that the economic loss doctrine and disclaimers did not apply to bar the tort claims.
This case involves a lawsuit by Ruben Reyes and other Retail Account Executives against AT&T Mobility Services LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay overtime compensation. The plaintiffs moved to conditionally certify a collective action on behalf of all such employees who earned under $100,000 per year and were not paid proper overtime. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, finding sufficient evidence from multiple affidavits that the employees were similarly situated, and the district court adopted this recommendation after de novo review. The court conditionally certified the class and ordered the defendant to provide contact information for notice purposes.
The case involved plaintiffs Albert Segal and Marianna Chaparova suing Amazon.com, Inc. under Florida law for issues with their Amazon Marketplace seller account, including withheld funds and blocked listings after they began selling merchandise on the site in 2009. Amazon moved to transfer venue to Washington, citing a forum-selection clause in the Participation Agreement that designates exclusive jurisdiction in King County, Washington courts for disputes exceeding $7,500. The court granted the motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), holding that the clause was valid and enforceable as part of a clickwrap agreement, selected without bad faith or fraud, and that any financial inconvenience to the plaintiffs did not rise to the level required to invalidate it under precedents like Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute.
This case involves an insurance coverage dispute arising from an underlying state court lawsuit where approximately 90 plaintiffs sued the Dania Defendants for negligence, violations of Florida's pollutant discharge laws, nuisance, and trespass, alleging bodily injury and property damage from the release of toxic contaminants during development of a former landfill site. Mt. Hawley had issued a commercial general liability policy to the Dania Defendants but refused to defend or indemnify them, citing policy exclusions. The court granted Mt. Hawley's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants' cross-motions, holding that the policy's pollution exclusion clause barred coverage for all claims in the underlying complaint because they stemmed from dispersal of pollutants known to be on the property. The court further noted that the continuous or progressive injury exclusion also precluded coverage, as the contamination predated the policy period, and that additional exclusions applied to asbestos, lead, and silica-related claims.