This case arose when two excavating companies sued BellSouth for allegedly overbilling them for repairs to damaged underground telecommunications facilities, specifically by including corporate overhead and claims-processing expenses in addition to direct repair costs. The court had previously ruled that the Florida Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act provides no remedies beyond those available at common law. In the present order addressing cross-motions for summary judgment, the court examined whether Florida tort and contract principles permit recovery of those disputed indirect costs. Relying on precedent holding that damages must be limited to amounts that make the injured party whole for actual repair expenses, the court analyzed whether claims-processing and certain overhead charges qualify as recoverable direct costs or instead constitute non-recoverable investigative and general corporate expenses.
business & regulatorypropertytorts & liabilityprocedure
This case involves the estate of a minor child who died in a car accident after running away from state-contracted foster care services provided by private nonprofit corporations and their employees. The plaintiff brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations, along with wrongful death and negligence counts, asserting that the defendants encouraged or assisted the child's runaway status despite knowing of heightened risks. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged that the private entities and individuals acted under color of state law due to their contracts with the Florida Department of Children and Families to provide foster placement and services. The court also granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion to file a second amended complaint and set deadlines for further pleadings.
Kersaundra Smith, an African American former flight attendant, sued AirTran Airways claiming her termination for dishonesty and misconduct was racially motivated or retaliatory and that she faced a hostile work environment, in violation of Title VII. The case reached the court on AirTran's motion for summary judgment, with the record showing multiple documented incidents including customer complaints, coworker disputes, a termination warning, an unjustified fatigue call, and unprofessional conduct toward passengers that led to her firing after progressive discipline. Smith had filed grievances and an EEOC charge, but the court examined whether she could establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation and whether AirTran's stated reasons were pretextual. The court granted summary judgment to AirTran, concluding that the evidence supported legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds for the termination and that Smith failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on her claims.
This consolidated case involves multiple plaintiffs asserting claims against various CSX corporate entities under the Family and Medical Leave Act for matters including terminations due to absenteeism policies, failures to notify employees of FMLA eligibility, and improper handling of intermittent leave requests. The court first dismissed claims against CSX entities that were not the plaintiffs' direct employers for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It then resolved numerous claims through settlements, stipulations of dismissal with prejudice, and voluntary dismissals, awarding costs to defendants in some instances while deferring a sanctions motion. On the remaining claims, the court granted summary judgment to defendants where plaintiffs failed to provide adequate notice of FMLA-qualifying reasons, absences were not covered by valid certifications, or employers met their notice obligations, and it denied summary judgment on a few claims presenting factual disputes over leave approvals or policy applications.
In this case under the Americans with Disabilities Act, plaintiff Bill Norkunas alleged that the Seahorse Hotel operated by defendant Seahorse NB, LLC had architectural barriers that discriminated against him based on his disability and sought injunctive relief to remedy them. The court addressed the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, considering arguments that the plaintiff's visits were solely as an ADA "tester" without legitimate intent to return and that he could only challenge barriers he encountered and that affected his specific disability. The court determined that the plaintiff had standing because evidence showed he had visited the property multiple times with plans to return, establishing a real and immediate threat of future injury, and prior case law supported tester standing under the ADA similar to other anti-discrimination statutes. The court also noted limitations on challenging barriers based on actual knowledge and encounter.
The case involved Wireless Towers challenging the City of Jacksonville's denial of its application to construct a 160-foot cell tower on agriculturally zoned land near state parks and preserves, claiming the decision violated the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and upheld the City's denial. It found that the Planning Commission's determination was supported by substantial evidence showing the tower would be incompatible with surrounding uses due to its height, design, and significant visual impact on environmentally sensitive lands, public parks, and kayak trails, as required by the local Tower Ordinance's objective and subjective criteria.
.jpg?width=900)