In Pinero v. Yam Margate, L.L.C., the plaintiff attempted substitute service of process on the defendant LLC under Florida long-arm statutes in a federal civil action. The defendant moved to quash the service, arguing it was executed under the wrong statute (§ 48.161 rather than § 48.181) and did not strictly comply with mailing requirements. The court granted the motion, ruling that the plaintiff failed to use the applicable statute for corporations concealing their whereabouts and did not provide proof of registered or certified mail notification after serving the Secretary of State. Service dated April 21, 2011, was quashed, and the plaintiff received an extension until September 9, 2011, to effect proper service or face dismissal without prejudice.
In Senter v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., homeowners who had entered into temporary Trial Period Plan agreements under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) sued Chase after the bank denied their requests for permanent loan modifications and initiated foreclosure proceedings. The plaintiffs alleged that their compliance with the TPP terms created an obligation for Chase to grant permanent modifications. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Its core reasoning was that the TPP agreements did not create an enforceable contractual right to a permanent modification and that related HAMP-based claims failed as a matter of law.
The case involved plaintiffs suing their mortgage servicer for alleged harassing phone calls and property visits in connection with foreclosure proceedings on their home, asserting claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the FDCPA claim on the ground that the communications and conduct were undertaken to enforce a security interest rather than to collect a debt within the meaning of the federal statute. It denied summary judgment on the remaining state-law claims and remanded them to Florida state court after dismissing the sole federal claim prior to trial.
business & regulatoryprocedurepropertytorts & liability
The case involved a Florida condominium association that purchased insurance policies from QBE covering damage from Hurricane Wilma and later sought declaratory judgments on three issues: whether the policies covered damage to windows and sliding glass doors providing unit access, whether the association was entitled to resolve the loss amount dispute through the policy's appraisal process, and whether the hurricane deductible was void under Florida statute for lacking required disclosures. The district court dismissed the first count for lack of a justiciable controversy, finding no evidence that QBE had denied coverage for the windows and doors. It dismissed the second count as premature because QBE had not yet taken a position creating a disagreement over the precise amount of the loss. The third count was stayed pending the Florida Supreme Court's decision in a related case on the deductible issue.
The case involved a plaintiff suing Bank of America over collection efforts on a home mortgage debt, asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, invasion of privacy, and for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in full. It dismissed the FDCPA claim with prejudice because mortgage servicers like the defendants are not debt collectors under the statute when the debt was not in default at assignment. The TCPA claim under one provision was dismissed with prejudice due to an established business relationship exemption, while other claims were dismissed without prejudice for inadequate factual allegations or lack of a viable basis for relief.
This case involves a Florida condominium association suing its insurer, QBE, after the insurer partially inspected but denied a claim for hurricane damage to the property under a commercial residential insurance policy issued in 2004. The complaint asserted claims for declaratory judgment (including challenges to coinsurance and deductible provisions), breach of contract for actual cash value and replacement cost, and breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss portions of the declaratory judgment count and the good faith claim. It reasoned that the coinsurance challenge was not ripe for declaratory relief since the insurer had not invoked the provision, other declaratory requests improperly sought monetary damages duplicative of the contract claims, and Florida law does not recognize a separate cause of action for breach of implied good faith in first-party insurance disputes until underlying coverage issues are resolved, as such claims are subsumed under statutory bad faith actions.