Virginia Maria Hernandez Covington

The case involved Daniel Kelliher's claims against Target National Bank for allegedly violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by sending monthly billing statements containing debt collection language and by retaining a third-party debt collector without informing it that Kelliher was represented by counsel, after Kelliher had notified Target of his representation. Target moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that federal law required the statements and that it had no duty to notify the collector. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the allegations, taken as true, stated plausible claims under the FCCPA because the statements and indirect collection efforts could constitute prohibited communications, and federal requirements did not necessarily shield the conduct.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned an appeal by the State of Florida Department of Revenue from a bankruptcy court order that enjoined the State and the debtor's ex-spouse from enforcing a claim for unpaid child support against the debtor after confirmation of his Chapter 11 plan. The bankruptcy court had determined that the confirmed plan, which included provisions treating late-filed claims as adjudicated on the merits, barred enforcement of the support obligation. The district court reversed, holding that domestic support obligations are nondischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code regardless of plan confirmation or discharge language, and that a bankruptcy court's rulings on the amount or existence of such obligations do not bind state courts in post-discharge enforcement proceedings under Eleventh Circuit precedent such as In re Diaz. The court noted that the State had actual notice of the bankruptcy but did not participate before the claims bar date or confirmation, yet this did not alter the nondischargeable nature of the debt.

family lawprocedure

In this case, Verizon Trademark Services, LLC and Verizon Licensing Company, Inc. sued Intercosmos Media Group, Inc., directNIC, LLC, and Domain Contender, LLC for cybersquatting under the Lanham Act, alleging unauthorized registration and use of Verizon-related domain names. The defendants, Louisiana entities, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in the Middle District of Florida. After the defendants submitted affidavits contesting any Florida contacts, the court granted the motion, holding that Verizon failed to establish jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute or to show that exercising jurisdiction would comport with due process. The court's reasoning centered on the absence of systematic and continuous business activity or an office in Florida by the defendants, along with minimal forum-state interest in the dispute.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Suomen Colorize Oy, a Finnish corporation, against DISH Network L.L.C. and related entities in the Middle District of Florida, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,277,398 concerning methods for providing services in telecommunications networks. The defendants moved to transfer the case to the District of Colorado under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing that Colorado is the center of gravity for the litigation due to the location of relevant witnesses, documents, and operations. The court granted the motion to transfer, concluding that the convenience of the parties and witnesses, access to sources of proof, and interests of justice strongly favored transfer to Colorado over the plaintiff's choice of forum in Florida. The decision was based on declarations showing that the bulk of evidence and key personnel are located in Colorado.

procedure

This case involves a dispute between borrower CFBP, LLC and lender U.S. Bank over a commercial mortgage agreement on an industrial warehouse property in Florida. After a 2008 fire damaged part of the building, the parties disagreed on the handling and disbursement of approximately $7.8 million in insurance proceeds for restoration, with CFBP alleging the Bank breached by failing to release funds and the Bank counterclaiming for breach of the mortgage terms. The court denied the Bank's motion for summary judgment on CFBP's claims and its own counterclaims. The core reasoning was that genuine issues of material fact remain, including whether the Bank committed the first material breach of the agreement's insurance proceeds provisions and whether CFBP satisfied conditions for fund release, and the Bank did not address CFBP's affirmative defenses.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Douglas, who was born abroad to non-citizen parents, became a lawful permanent resident, and obtained derivative U.S. citizenship in 1981 when his mother naturalized while he was a minor. Despite this, ICE detained him in 2006 for removal proceedings based on prior criminal convictions, after agents reviewed his A-file and criminal records showing him as an alien and after he had previously conceded alien status in earlier proceedings. Douglas sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging false imprisonment, claiming he informed agents of his citizenship but was still held without legal authority. The court granted summary judgment to the United States on the relevant counts, finding that Douglas failed to show a triable issue that the detention lacked legal authority because ICE agents had probable cause to believe he was removable based on available records and the circumstances at the time. The decision rested on the conclusion that the agents' actions were supported by objective facts indicating removability, even if later evidence confirmed his citizenship.

immigrationcriminal lawtorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between Harrell’s, LLC and Florala, LLC against Agrium Advanced (U.S.) Technologies, Inc., stemming from allegations that Agrium breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith by competing in the professional fertilizer market, along with a related breach of contract claim under their joint venture agreements. The defendant moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings based on an arbitration clause in the Operating Agreement governing the parties' LLC. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, determining that the claims constituted impasse items subject to the agreement's alternative dispute resolution process. The core reasoning centered on the validity and breadth of the arbitration provision, which delegates questions of scope and arbitrability to the arbitrators, with no legal barriers preventing enforcement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a negligence and loss of consortium lawsuit filed in Florida state court by plaintiffs against Continental Airlines after Mrs. Bechtelheimer fell while disembarking from a flight at Tampa International Airport. The airline removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, but the plaintiffs later moved to amend their complaint to add the non-diverse Hillsborough County Aviation Authority as a defendant and to remand the case to state court. The court granted both motions, determining under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) that the joinder factors weighed in favor of allowing amendment (including no fraudulent joinder and potential injury to plaintiffs if denied), which destroyed complete diversity and required remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

This products liability case involves plaintiff Chapman, who underwent hip replacement surgery in Virginia in 1995 using a component manufactured by defendant DePuy; the component fractured in late 2006, leading to additional surgery in 2007 and a lawsuit filed in Florida in June 2009 alleging negligent design and manufacture. The court granted DePuy's motion for summary judgment, holding that the claims were time-barred. Applying Florida's choice-of-law rules and the significant relationship test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, the court determined that Virginia had the most significant contacts because the relevant medical procedures, implantation, and treatment occurred there, making Virginia's two-year statute of limitations applicable rather than Florida's four-year period. The suit, filed more than two years after the December 2006 discovery of the fracture, was therefore untimely under Virginia law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, the Hetricks sued Ideal Image Development Corporation under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, alleging that the franchisor made false or misleading oral statements about the costs and profitability of opening a cosmetic laser hair removal franchise, which caused them to lose their investment. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment after a prior jury trial on related issues. The court denied both motions as to the core claim and most affirmative defenses, finding genuine issues of material fact and inconclusive evidence. However, the court granted the Hetricks' motion on Ideal Image's affirmative defense B due to collateral estoppel from the jury's prior findings and noted that two other defenses had been withdrawn by agreement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, the Bechtelheimers sued Continental Airlines in state court for negligence and loss of consortium after Ms. Bechtelheimer tripped and fell while disembarking from a flight, alleging damages exceeding $15,000. After the Bechtelheimers served discovery responses indicating medical expenses over $88,000, Continental removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds. The Bechtelheimers moved to remand, arguing that removal was untimely, that Continental waived removal by answering and conducting discovery in state court, and that a non-diverse defendant might later be joined. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that removal was timely because it occurred within thirty days of the discovery responses establishing the amount in controversy, that pre-removal litigation conduct did not waive the right to remove, and that the possibility of future joinder was premature and insufficient to require remand.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which Colony Insurance sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Suncoast Medical Clinic under a commercial general liability policy for a wrongful death and medical malpractice lawsuit brought by a patient's widow. The policy contained exclusions for bodily injury arising from the rendering or failure to render medical, surgical, or health services. The underlying complaint alleged that Suncoast physicians failed to timely diagnose and follow up on a growing liver lesion, leading to the patient's death from cancer. The court granted summary judgment to Colony, concluding that the exclusions applied and barred coverage. It later denied Suncoast's motion for reconsideration, finding no change in law, new evidence, or clear error.

business & regulatoryhealthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case involved Morton Plant Hospital's challenge to a Recovery Audit Contractor's reopening of Medicare claims more than one year after the initial determinations, on the grounds that the contractor lacked good cause and that the reopening decision should be subject to administrative or judicial review. The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and denied the hospital's motion. The court held that 42 C.F.R. § 405.980(a)(5) expressly makes a contractor's decision whether to reopen final and non-appealable, that the good-cause standard is enforced only through internal agency oversight rather than provider appeals, and that this framework is consistent with the Medicare statute and Supreme Court precedent such as Your Home Visiting Nurse Services v. Shalala. The court rejected arguments that the regulations were ambiguous or that due-process principles required external review of the reopening decision.

healthcareprocedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff, an African American male who had worked as a day-to-day substitute teacher for the Hillsborough County School Board, suing the Board after he was removed from eligibility for employment in 1994 due to documented complaints about his classroom management and conduct, then mistakenly rehired in 2005 because of a software error that removed his name from an alert list, and subsequently terminated again upon discovery of the prior issues. The plaintiff asserted claims of race and age discrimination, retaliation, and related state-law claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the ADEA, and Florida statutes. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims, denied the defendant's sanctions motion, and denied the plaintiff's motions. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, failed to show that the Board's legitimate non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual, and that certain state claims were procedurally barred for lack of required pre-suit notice.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Gary Smith's copyright infringement claims against Trans-Siberian Orchestra and others regarding the Rose Guitar image. Smith moved to amend the complaint to add Spiderweb Art Gallery, Inc. as a defendant, which allegedly created and distributed the infringing image under contract. The court granted the motion to join under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 20, finding the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share common questions of law regarding copyright infringement, and denied the defendants' motion for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because the joinder request was not filed in bad faith or to multiply proceedings.

procedureproperty

The case involved a plaintiff who worked as a data processing technician for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, initially as a temporary employee and later as an independent contractor, who claimed she was transferred to a help desk position and then terminated due to her pregnancy in violation of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, applying a multi-factor test to determine employment status and evaluating evidence of discriminatory motive in the transfer and performance-based termination. It granted the plaintiff's motion in part, holding that she qualified as an employee rather than an independent contractor under the statutes, but denied her request for a ruling on statutory liability for the transfer due to disputed facts and credibility issues. The defendant's motion was denied entirely because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the reasons for the adverse actions. The rulings turned on application of summary judgment standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and precedents interpreting anti-discrimination laws.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a pool contractor who sued his insurer, Nautilus Insurance Company, for breaching a commercial general liability policy by initially denying coverage for a claim by the Girl Scouts alleging a defective swimming pool. The underlying coverage dispute was settled when the insurer agreed to defend and indemnify the plaintiff without reserving rights, leaving only the issue of attorney fees. The court determined that the settlement was equivalent to a confession of judgment, entitling the plaintiff to fees under Florida Statute § 627.428. After reviewing time records, expert opinions, and applying the lodestar method with adjustments for reasonableness, the magistrate recommended and the district judge adopted an award of $27,520 in attorney fees plus interest and $1,425 in costs under Rule 54(d).

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an insurance company's federal declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its policyholders under a commercial general liability policy for claims in an underlying state court lawsuit alleging breach of warranties, building code violations, and unfair trade practices related to a condominium conversion project. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal court should abstain due to a parallel state court action that included claims for breach of the insurance contract and declaratory relief on the same policy issues. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that it had discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to decline jurisdiction. The core reasoning centered on the Brillhart and Ameritas abstention factors, including the pendency of the state proceeding that could more completely resolve the coverage questions and the potential for inconsistent verdicts if both actions proceeded simultaneously.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a consumer suing a debt collection law firm and its two individual officers under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for leaving multiple voicemail messages that failed to disclose the callers were debt collectors. The officers moved to dismiss the claims against them personally, contending that they were not debt collectors merely by virtue of their corporate positions. The court denied the motion, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged the officers controlled and directed the firm's debt collection practices, including message content, which could render them personally liable as debt collectors under the Act's definition covering those who directly or indirectly collect debts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Smith v. Trans-Siberian Orchestra, plaintiff Gary Smith, a Florida artist, sued the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, Paul O'Neill, and New Jersey artist Greg Hildebrandt for copyright infringement and related claims, alleging unauthorized use of his "Rose Guitar" artwork on merchandise and other products. Defendant Hildebrandt moved to dismiss the claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, finding that Smith failed to establish that Hildebrandt's activities satisfied Florida's long-arm statute, as Hildebrandt had only minimal contacts with Florida and did not engage in substantial business or commit a tortious act there. The court did not reach the due process analysis because the long-arm statute requirements were not met.

procedure