Timothy J. Corrigan

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.

civil rightsfamily lawproceduretorts & liability

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power

This case concerns CIBA Vision Corporation's motion for a permanent injunction to prevent Johnson & Johnson Vision Care from selling its ACUVUE OASYS contact lenses, which a prior ruling found to infringe CIBA's Nicolson patents. The court applied the four-factor equitable test from eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, requiring proof of irreparable injury, inadequacy of monetary remedies, a favorable balance of hardships, and no disservice to the public interest. The analysis centered on CIBA's prior licensing of the patents (including settlement-related licenses), with the court reasoning that such history is relevant but does not automatically bar injunctive relief, as adding a new infringing competitor can create distinct irreparable harm not addressed by past licenses. The opinion incorporates evidence from a two-day hearing on these factors while deferring a final ruling on the motion itself.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Everean Mitchell's early termination of a 24-month automobile lease for a Ford Taurus assigned to defendant Ford Motor Credit Co., brought under the Consumer Leasing Act (part of TILA) and related state law claims. After Mitchell returned the vehicle three months early and refused to pay remaining amounts, Ford sought to collect early termination charges calculated under the lease formula, which Mitchell alleged were unreasonable and excessive compared to full-term payments. On defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court examined the lease terms, the formula's application (including unpaid capitalized cost and fair market value), Mitchell's payments and reports, and whether claims such as unjust enrichment were properly supported, while noting Ford later revised its formula.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death action brought by the estate of seven-year-old Sarah Beauregard, who died in a 2006 Jeep accident after a Continental tire experienced tread separation. The plaintiff alleged negligence and strict liability claims against Continental for defects in the tire's design, manufacture, testing, marketing, and warnings. The court granted Continental's motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff lacked admissible evidence to establish a manufacturing or design defect present at the time the tire left the factory, that the tire (manufactured in 1994 and subjected to unknown prior use, improper mounting, and inflation issues) was the proximate cause of the loss of control, or that any failure to warn caused the accident.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Wireless Towers challenged St. Johns County's denial of its application to build a 150-foot camouflaged cell tower on church property near a designated scenic highway, alleging that the denial violated the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 by lacking substantial evidence. The case reached the court on cross-motions for summary judgment, with the dispute centering on the county's land development code requirement that an applicant prove denial would prohibit communications service to a particular area before approving a tower within 600 feet of a scenic highway. The court analyzed the local ordinance's prohibition standard, the evidence submitted regarding service coverage gaps, and federal case law interpreting the Act, while noting that the plaintiff had not claimed an effective prohibition of service under the federal statute.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

This case involves Verizon Wireless challenging the City of Jacksonville's denial of its permit application to construct a 160-foot camouflaged cell tower in an agricultural area near state parks and preserves. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires local governments' decisions on wireless facilities to be supported by substantial evidence. The court decided in favor of Verizon, holding that the City's denial based on aesthetic compatibility and potential impact on environmentally sensitive lands was not backed by substantial evidence in the record, as the proposed tower met objective siting standards and there was no concrete evidence of incompatibility with surrounding uses.

business & regulatoryfederal powerenvironment

In this case, Florida resident Teresa Devore sued New Jersey-based manufacturer Howmedica Osteonics Corp. and Florida-based distributor Orthopedic Solutions in state court, alleging strict liability, breach of warranties, negligence, and FDUPTA violations arising from a defective hip prosthesis implanted in 2004. Defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and that Orthopedic Solutions had been fraudulently joined. Devore moved to remand for lack of complete diversity and insufficient jurisdictional amount. The court denied remand, finding that uncontroverted evidence established Orthopedic Solutions had no involvement with the specific device and thus could not be liable, rendering its joinder fraudulent; the court also determined that Devore's interrogatory responses and documented medical expenses satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement, dismissed the non-diverse defendant, and retained jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

This consolidated patent case concerns CIBA Vision's Nicolson patents on silicone hydrogel extended-wear contact lenses and whether Johnson & Johnson's Acuvue Oasys lenses infringe nine asserted claims from the '100, '811, and '894 patents, as well as the validity of those patents. After claim construction, summary judgment rulings that eliminated some invalidity defenses, and a ten-day bench trial, the court compared the accused product to the construed claims on issues including oxygen permeability, surface treatment, ion permeability, and separate phases. The court determined that CIBA proved the product met the remaining limitations of the asserted claims, that prior art such as the Chang patent did not anticipate or render obvious the inventions because it was not enabled and required undue experimentation, and that CIBA's commercial Focus Night & Day lens achieved substantial market success.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved an excavator, Hinson, that damaged BellSouth's underground cable and later challenged portions of the repair bill. After paying an initial invoice that included direct repair costs plus indirect markups, Hinson sued under the Florida Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act, contesting whether corporate overhead and claims-processing expenses could be recovered as part of the statute's "total sum of the losses." On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court examined the Act's text, purpose, and legislative history to decide whether those categories of indirect costs qualified as recoverable losses when underground facilities are damaged despite proper marking.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved Shandong Airlines suing CAPT, LLC and Flight Training Services International for failing to provide contracted pilot training to 24 cadets, after Shandong had paid most of the $1.6 million fee; the claims included breach of contract and fraudulent inducement based on misrepresentations about the defendants' capacity to perform. After the defendants defaulted, the court treated the complaint's allegations as admitted and held an ex parte hearing on damages. The court granted partial final default judgment, finding the defendants jointly and severally liable for $1,723,454.60 in liquidated damages covering substitute training costs, visa extensions, and housing, while dismissing the equitable claims as moot and reserving ruling on certain additional damages like lost profits.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved counterclaims brought by debtors Krig, Miller, and Livingston against debt collectors North Star and Capital One, along with their attorney Orovitz, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and related Florida statutes based on collection letters and proposed stipulations for judgment served with state-court complaints seeking to recover on credit card debts. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment after denying earlier motions to dismiss and to remand. It granted summary judgment to the counterclaim defendants on the FDCPA and state-law claims, reasoning that the documents did not contain material misrepresentations about amounts owed, interest, or other terms, and that the practices at issue did not violate statutory prohibitions on unfair or deceptive conduct. The opinion also addressed related issues such as actual damages and class certification procedures but deferred full class briefing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a habeas petition by Darryl Arnold challenging his 1998 state conviction for sale or delivery of cocaine on the ground that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose favorable evidence. At the time of the undercover investigation and trial, one of the two principal investigating officers was engaged in multiple felonies including selling drugs, yet this information was not known to the prosecutor or defense. The court held that because the officer was part of the prosecution team his knowledge of his own crimes was imputed to the state, the evidence was favorable and material to impeaching the officer's credibility, and the nondisclosure rendered the jury verdict unworthy of confidence. The court therefore granted habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case is a patent dispute between Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. and CIBA Vision Corporation concerning validity and infringement of patents on ophthalmic lenses, focusing on whether certain claims require enablement for both surface-treated and non-surface-treated embodiments. The court clarified its prior summary judgment order, rejecting J&J's argument that claims omitting any surface treatment limitation must be enabled for both types of lenses based on cited Federal Circuit precedent, while noting disputed factual issues on enablement. It also ruled on multiple pretrial motions, granting in part CIBA's motions in limine to limit references to other litigation and a recent clinical study, denying J&J's Daubert and other evidentiary motions without prejudice, and allocating trial time between the parties ahead of the March 2009 trial date.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Wayne Gaedtke challenging his 2004 Florida state conviction for lewd or lascivious molestation of a minor, for which he received a 15-year sentence after entering a no-contest plea at arraignment. Gaedtke claimed his plea was involuntary due to the trial judge's statements about plea offers and that his appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate, advise on rights waived, or object to the process, resulting in only a brief consultation before pleading. The court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard and determined that counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient given the lack of preparation and rushed proceedings but found no prejudice because Gaedtke failed to show a reasonable probability that he would have proceeded to trial absent the deficiencies. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Colin Bruley, a leasing agent for defendant Village Green Management Company at an apartment complex in Florida, who was terminated after he retrieved his shotgun from his on-site apartment and brought it to the scene of a shooting to assist the victim before police arrived. Bruley sued for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, alleging his firing for possessing a firearm on the property infringed on his right to bear arms in self-defense. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that Florida follows the at-will employment doctrine without a general public policy exception for retaliatory discharges, and no Florida statute or precedent creates an exception protecting an employee's possession of a firearm on private employer property against company rules. The court distinguished contrary out-of-state authority and noted that any right to bear arms does not extend to overriding an employer's wishes on its premises.

labor & employmentguns