Patricia C. Fawsett

In this criminal forfeiture proceeding following Sholam Weiss's RICO conviction and money judgment, the government sought to forfeit two New York properties titled in the name of Weiss's wife, Goldie Feig, as substitute assets. Feig petitioned to exclude the properties under an innocent ownership claim based on a 1989 separation agreement, while both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied both motions, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the validity and circumstances of the separation agreement's execution and whether Weiss retained control or beneficial ownership of the properties after the purported transfer.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved Enpat, Inc. suing Pavel Budnic for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), alleging that Budnic installed and used a wing spar modification kit on his aircraft that infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,328,260. Budnic failed to appear or respond after being served, leading to entry of default. The court granted default judgment on liability, taking the complaint's allegations as true and finding they sufficiently established direct infringement. It declined to award damages or a permanent injunction at this stage, instead granting Enpat leave to submit further evidence on those issues under 35 U.S.C. §§ 283 and 284.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this patent case, Voter Verified, Inc. sued Election Systems & Software, Inc. for alleged infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,769,613 and RE40,449, which cover self-verifying voting methods that include steps for a computer voting station to present ballots, store votes, print them for voter examination, and allow voter decisions on acceptability before tabulation. The defendant denied infringement and sought declaratory judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, as well as non-infringement. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court analyzed the accused AutoMark and iVotronic RTAL systems against the asserted claims (including claims 49, 56, 85, 93, and 94), focusing on whether the systems performed all required steps or whether voters exercised sufficient direction and control, and evaluated anticipation under § 102 based on prior art and the reissue history of the patents.

electionsprocedure

This case is a patent infringement action in which Voter Verified, Inc. sued Premier Election Solutions, Inc. and Diebold, Inc. for allegedly willfully infringing U.S. Patents Nos. 6,769,613 and RE40,449, which describe computer voting systems that print ballots for voter review and verification before final tabulation. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on direct infringement of certain claims, patent validity, and intervening rights, while the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment of non-infringement (including because the original '613 patent was surrendered upon reissue) and invalidity, arguing that the asserted claims were anticipated by 1986 prior-art articles describing similar electronic voting and verification processes. The court reviewed the accused AccuVote-TSX system with AccuView Printer Module, compared it to the patent claims requiring voter comparison and acceptance steps, and analyzed whether voters exercised sufficient direction or control over automated printing to establish direct infringement.

electionsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from consolidated lawsuits involving breach of contract, conversion, Lanham Act violations, and FDUTPA claims between Brokerage Computer Systems, Inc. and North American Clearing, Inc., along with its officer Richard Goble, stemming from a licensing agreement. After granting summary judgment in Goble's favor, the court considered his motion for attorneys' fees and costs, which BCS did not oppose. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion. Upon de novo review of Goble's objections, the district court explained that under the American Rule, a prevailing party must prove entitlement to fees via contract or statute even if the motion is unopposed, and noted that Goble signed the agreement only in a corporate capacity, not individually.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves the sentencing of Defendant Damian Jamil Smith, who had pled guilty in state court to robbery and related charges and in federal court to two counts of robbery under 18 U.S.C. §1951, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and a second firearm offense under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(C)(I). The court considered the defendant's objections to the presentence report on issues including application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(1) for taking property of a financial institution, whether consecutive sentences are required for the §924(c) offenses, the effect of the "except" clause in §924(c)(1)(A), and whether the federal robbery sentence must run consecutive to the state sentence. The court reasoned that the enhancement applies because unauthorized ATM withdrawals meant the banks primarily bore the risk of loss under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, making the funds the property of the financial institutions. It further held that consecutive mandatory minimum terms of seven and twenty-five years must be imposed for the two §924(c) violations and run consecutive to other sentences, based on the statutory text and precedent such as Deal v. United States.

criminal lawguns

This case involves plaintiffs Robert and Ginney Siever suing defendants BWGaskets, Inc. and its owners after purchasing exclusive rights to the 'Gasket Guy' trade name and business in the Los Angeles, Orange County, and Las Vegas territories. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, common law fraud, breach of three contracts, and the Florida Sale of Business Opportunities Act, based on third-party infringements that the defendants allegedly failed to prevent despite assurances of exclusivity and enforcement efforts. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts, while plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claims. The court outlined the summary judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, requiring no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, with evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and began analyzing the claims including the broad scope of FDUTPA and contract interpretation regarding exclusivity obligations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over long-term disability insurance benefits under a policy issued by Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company to plaintiff Ronnie Hogan, who received benefits starting in 2001 until they were discontinued in 2004; after Hogan sued for past benefits and Provident eventually confessed judgment in 2008, Hogan filed an amended complaint against Provident and its parent Unum asserting multiple counts of statutory bad faith, violations of Florida insurance laws regarding misrepresentations and claim mishandling, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence, and conspiracy. The court considered the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain counts and portions of claims because the plaintiff failed to adequately plead conditions precedent for statutory claims, actual or apparent agency, material misrepresentations, or sufficient facts to support conspiracy and punitive damages allegations under the plausibility standards of Iqbal and Twombly, while allowing other claims to proceed where the pleadings met those requirements.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a contract dispute between Brokerage Computer Systems, Inc. (BCS) and North American Clearing, Inc. (NAC) over software licensing and ownership, with BCS asserting claims including breach of contract, conversion, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act after NAC filed for bankruptcy. The action proceeded against NAC officer Richard L. Goble individually following consolidation and dismissal of other defendants. The court granted Goble's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding insufficient evidence of his personal participation in any alleged misconduct, that interrogatory responses were not actions in commerce under the Lanham Act, and that FDUTPA and other claims lacked factual support or were otherwise deficient.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a surety bond dispute arising from an electrical contracting project for the City of Daytona Beach, where contractor Ace Electrical Service claimed the design plans violated building codes and refused to proceed without extra payment, leading to a default declaration and subsequent litigation. Auto-Owners Insurance sued Ace, Ace impleaded the City, the City impleaded project designer Dickens & Associates for indemnification and malpractice, and the City sought to further implead a Dickens employee. The court denied Dickens' motion to dismiss the third-party complaint and granted the City leave to file a fourth-party complaint, finding the impleaders timely under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 14 and 16 because the City acted with diligence after learning of the claims and because joinder served interests in judicial efficiency.

procedure

The case involved the estate of Madison Miller suing Thrifty Rent-A-Car System after Miller died from injuries sustained in a car accident in South Africa involving a vehicle rented from Thrifty's South African franchisee, SAFY Trust. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the key issue of whether Thrifty was vicariously liable for SAFY's alleged provision of a defective vehicle. The court analyzed the twenty-seven-page licensing agreement between Thrifty and SAFY, which granted use of Thrifty's marks and system in exchange for compliance with operating standards but explicitly stated that licensees were independent businesses. Drawing on Florida and Oklahoma agency law, the Restatement (Second) and (Third) of Agency, and factors such as control, representations to the public, and the franchise structure, the court evaluated whether an actual or apparent agency relationship existed that could impose liability on Thrifty.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a wrongful death action brought by the estate of Madison Miller, an Ohio resident, against Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc., stemming from a 2007 car accident in South Africa; the rented vehicle allegedly malfunctioned, leading to a crash and subsequent fatal helicopter evacuation. After the plaintiffs relocated to Florida and sued Thrifty (an Oklahoma corporation), Thrifty sought to amend its answer to assert a Fabre affirmative defense apportioning liability to twelve non-party entities, including Toyota entities, the helicopter operator and manufacturer, and South African aviation authorities, while also moving to apply South African law. The court addressed multiple motions regarding the designation of Fabre defendants, choice of law under the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law, and Florida's shift from joint and several liability, evaluating the interests of Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Africa in determining whether apportionment to non-parties is permitted. It found that the Fabre mechanism could potentially apply depending on the governing law and noted procedural rules for proving foreign law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves a plaintiff seeking damages for loss of consortium after his wife was injured in a car accident in South Africa, with companion suits also pending. Defendant Thrifty moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that South Africa provided an adequate alternative forum and that public and private interest factors favored dismissal. The court denied the motion, finding that while some private interest factors supported dismissal, Thrifty had not shown the unusually extreme circumstances required to override the plaintiff's choice of a U.S. forum, particularly since its primary defense regarding agency relationships did not depend on local South African evidence.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a Hyundai dealership's lawsuit against the manufacturer alleging breach of their franchise agreement, breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, violation of Florida's Dealer Protection Act, and breach of fiduciary duty, stemming from the collection and allocation of advertising assessment funds and alleged unequal treatment favoring other dealers in the same market. The court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment based on undisputed facts about the parties' contract, the creation and operation of regional dealer advertising associations, and the manufacturer's role in collecting and transferring funds. The core reasoning applied Florida contract law principles, including the economic loss rule limiting tort claims where parties are in privity, the absence of an independent fiduciary duty arising from the agreement, and whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding compliance with statutory dealer protections.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Cook v. CSX Transportation, Inc., a longtime locomotive engineer sued his railroad employer under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, alleging that a sharp jolt during car coupling combined with decades of whole-body vibration from inadequate seating and ergonomics caused severe back injury and resulting emotional distress. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, contending that the record conclusively showed no breach of any duty owed to the plaintiff. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence—including expert opinions on locomotive design and working conditions—to create genuine issues of material fact regarding breach that must be resolved by a jury.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff Cathleen McNa, an emergency dispatcher in her mid-fifties, suing her employer Communications Inter-Local Agency and two supervisors for alleged age and disability discrimination after she received suspensions, derogatory comments, denial of accommodation requests, and eventual termination. She asserted claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing only the Section 1983 count without prejudice while allowing the remaining counts to proceed. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a qualifying disability under the ADA by stating her anxiety and depression substantially limited major life activities, that overlapping statutory claims based on the same facts are permissible under federal pleading rules, and that the Section 1983 claim failed to meet the requirements for municipal liability or was otherwise deficient.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which relator Gregory Chabot alleged that defendant MLU Services, Inc. submitted false claims totaling $7.5 million to FEMA for installing manufactured homes after falsely certifying compliance with Florida licensing requirements. MLU moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was deficient for not attaching the FEMA contract and failed to state a claim because the contract covered only exempt travel trailers, or alternatively to strike paragraphs describing the relator's investigation. The court denied the motion in full, holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not require attachment of documents to a complaint, that the contract expressly referenced installation of manufactured homes subject to licensing, and that the investigation paragraphs were relevant to the relator's status as an original source under the False Claims Act. The court therefore allowed the case to proceed without prejudice to later factual development.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, two employees of a company that installs and monitors ignition interlock devices sued their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation. The employer moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiffs qualified for the administrative exemption from FLSA overtime requirements. The court denied the motion, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the employees' primary duties consisted of exempt administrative tasks or non-exempt manual labor, as the record contained conflicting evidence on the nature and amount of time spent on various duties that could not be resolved at the summary judgment stage.

labor & employment

The case involves resort owners who sued their insurer Lexington Insurance Company along with adjusting and repair firms, alleging the defendants conspired to deprive them of full policy benefits for hurricane damage to six Florida properties in 2004. The sixty-five-page amended complaint asserted eighteen causes of action, including breach of the all-risk insurance policy, tortious interference with contract, and violations of federal RICO and Florida civil remedies statutes. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, for a more definite statement, and to strike, which the court considered after reviewing the policy terms, proof-of-loss requirements, and the factual allegations of coercion and underpayment. The court evaluated whether the pleadings sufficiently stated claims under applicable standards without reaching the merits of the underlying disputes.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case concerns a contract dispute between Alan Horowitch and Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. regarding the purchase of a D-Jet aircraft, where the plaintiff paid a $20,000 deposit and was assigned a delivery position, but later faced changes in pricing and order processes by the defendant. The plaintiff brought claims for anticipatory repudiation seeking specific performance or alternatively breach of contract, breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of deceptive trade practices laws. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court examined the formation and terms of the contract, applicable state law including potential choice-of-law issues between Florida and Arizona, and defenses such as waiver and price adjustment clauses, determining the resolution of breach issues while reserving questions of remedy for trial.

business & regulatory