Alan Stephen Gold

This case centered on a 2003 License Agreement between MDS (Canada), Inc. (Nordion) and Rad Source Technologies, Inc., under which Rad Source licensed patent rights for blood irradiation devices such as the RS 3000, with disputes arising over whether the new RS 3400 embodied those patents, the effect of a later sublicense and asset purchase involving Best entities, and obligations under the grant of license, non-compete, and right-of-first-negotiation provisions. After a bench trial in phases covering liability and technical/patent issues, the court concluded that neither party proved entitlement to damages, making a damages phase unnecessary, and that the non-compete provision had expired by its terms in 2010. The court issued detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law interpreting the agreement's key articles after the parties reached an impasse in mediation following a preliminary order.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a Florida construction company suing Illinois-based engineers for professional malpractice and negligent misrepresentation after the engineers' reports led the City of North Miami Beach to require replacement of a water slide in a pool renovation project. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the economic loss rule barred the tort claims and that they owed no duty to the plaintiff since there was no contractual privity. The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, holding that under Florida law the economic loss rule prevents recovery in tort for purely economic damages absent a special relationship or privity, and that no such duty existed here based on the facts alleged.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a local business, Moheb, Inc. d/b/a Mr. Moe’s, challenging the City of Miami’s 2008 ordinance that reduced the permitted hours for alcohol sales by supper clubs in a specific commercial zone from 5:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., following an earlier lawsuit that was dismissed with prejudice and covenants in which the business had agreed to follow city code provisions on alcohol hours. After the business added a federal equal protection claim to its state-court complaint, the city removed the case to federal court, prompting the court to consider abstention and other defenses. The district court decided to remand the entire action to state court, including the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. The core reasoning was that Pullman abstention applies because unsettled questions of state and local law—such as res judicata from the prior suit, the effect of the restrictions declarations, and interpretation of the zoning ordinance—could moot or alter the posture of the single federal constitutional claim, avoiding unnecessary federal constitutional adjudication.

business & regulatoryprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a marine insurance dispute where Great Lakes Reinsurance sought a declaratory judgment that its policy on a vessel owned by defendants Morales and Barreiro was void due to material misrepresentations about ownership and operating experience, and that no coverage applied to an alleged theft occurring while the vessel was on a trailer at a residence, an excluded location under the policy. KeyBank, named as a loss payee on the policy, separately sought summary judgment on its cross-claim against Morales for breach of a loan note and deficiency after default on installment payments. The court granted both motions for summary judgment, finding that the defendants' failure to respond meant all material facts in the insurers' and bank's statements were admitted, that the misrepresentation was material as a matter of law allowing rescission, that the loss fell within the policy exclusion, and that KeyBank as a simple loss payee had no independent rights to recover under the voided policy while also being entitled to judgment on the note.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case arose from a 2006 plane crash in Guatemala that killed five people aboard a Cessna aircraft with a Teledyne engine; the flight was returning injured individuals from a traffic accident for medical care when the engine reportedly failed. Plaintiffs brought consolidated tort claims for negligence and strict liability against Teledyne on behalf of the decedents. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the federal General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) imposed an 18-year statute of repose barring the claims. The court denied the motion, holding that Guatemalan law governs all substantive issues including statutes of limitations and repose, rendering GARA inapplicable, and that even if GARA applied the emergency exception for medical transport would likely preserve the claims of the injured passengers.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a trademark infringement dispute in which Tiramisu International LLC, owner of the registered 'Tiramisu' mark for liquors, sued Clever Imports LLC after the defendant began selling imported liquor labeled 'Europa Tiramisu' and refused to comply with cease-and-desist demands or discovery orders. Following the defendant's failure to secure counsel and repeated noncompliance, the court entered a default judgment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting in part the plaintiff's motion by issuing a permanent injunction against further use of the mark, awarding $53,375 in damages equal to the defendant's gross sales, $56,623.25 in reasonable attorneys' fees, and $145 in costs, while denying the request for treble damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians petitioning to quash an IRS administrative summons issued to a third-party bank (Morgan Stanley) seeking limited financial records from a tribal account to investigate potential unreported income by former tribal chairman Billy Cypress. The court denied the petition to quash on grounds of tribal sovereign immunity, overbreadth, and irrelevance, finding that tribal members are generally subject to federal tax obligations like other citizens and that sovereign immunity does not protect records held by third parties. However, the court ordered a limited adversary hearing to address the Tribe's remaining claims that the summons lacked a legitimate purpose or sought information already in the government's possession. The reasoning emphasized the IRS's statutory authority under 26 U.S.C. § 7602 to issue summonses for tax investigations and Eleventh Circuit precedent requiring such hearings only on specific allegations of bad faith.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

In Sorgenfrei v. Carnival Corp., the plaintiff sued Carnival Cruise Lines and Steiner Management Services after slipping and falling in a shower on the Carnival Conquest cruise ship in April 2004. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the suit was barred by the one-year limitations period and forum selection clause in the passenger ticket contract, which required claims to be filed in Florida federal court. The court granted the motions, finding no dispute of material facts, that the claim was time-barred as the suit was filed in Louisiana state court more than one year after the injury, and that equitable tolling did not apply because the plaintiff failed to act diligently after being notified of the contractual requirements.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a Canadian seafarer who was injured while working on a Bermuda-flagged cruise ship and sued the cruise line in Florida state court under the Jones Act for negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. The defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement that required disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration in Bermuda under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case, and denied related motions for discovery and remand, while severing the agreement's choice-of-law clause that would have applied only Bermuda law. The core reasoning was that the Convention requires enforcement of written arbitration agreements arising from commercial relationships involving foreign parties unless they are null and void, and the agreement met all jurisdictional prerequisites without triggering affirmative defenses like unconscionability or public policy violations after severance. The court also found the plaintiff's claims of inability to afford arbitration insufficient to render the agreement incapable of performance.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between El Dorado Towers Condominium Association and its insurer QBE over a claim for property damage from Hurricane Wilma under a commercial property insurance policy. The plaintiff submitted a claim and provided some documentation and examinations under oath, but QBE argued that the association failed to fully cooperate by withholding certain records, not producing all requested meeting minutes, and deferring key questions to its public adjuster, violating policy conditions that are prerequisites to filing suit. QBE moved for summary judgment on these grounds under Florida law. The court denied the motion, holding that disputed issues of material fact exist regarding the extent of the plaintiff's compliance with the policy's cooperation and documentation requirements, making summary judgment inappropriate.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerns efforts by the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and Friends of the Everglades to enforce a prior 2008 summary judgment order requiring compliance with phosphorus discharge limits under the Clean Water Act for Storm Water Treatment Areas that filter water entering the Everglades Protection Area. The court granted the plaintiffs' motions for contempt or to compel compliance in part, imposing equitable relief that requires the state and federal defendants to meet specific milestones and deadlines. The core reasoning was that ongoing discharges from the STAs exceed the 10 ppb water quality based effluent limitation, leading to continued environmental degradation as documented in reports and expert testimony, and that enforcement of the prior order is necessary to achieve the required standards rather than relying on less protective technology-based limits.

environmentfederal power

The case involved a Serbian seaman, Nikola Krstic, who sued Princess Cruise Lines for negligence and failure to provide adequate medical treatment under the Jones Act after sustaining injuries while working on one of its ships. The defendant moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an employment agreement that included an arbitration clause and a choice-of-law provision specifying Bermuda law. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case, and struck the choice-of-law provision as unenforceable because it would violate U.S. public policy by attempting to waive the plaintiff's statutory rights under U.S. law, but found the arbitration clause itself valid and severable under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case is an interpleader action brought by Podhurst Orseck P.A. against multiple claimants over competing rights to a portion of attorneys' fees from settlements in lawsuits stemming from the 2006 Siberia Airlines Flight 778 crash in Russia. The court held that the statutory interpleader requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 were met, granted Podhurst's motion for a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 to restrain claims against the deposited funds, dismissed Podhurst as a disinterested stakeholder while preserving its right to seek fees and costs, and transferred the action to the Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The core reasoning was that adverse claims created a genuine dispute over the res, Podhurst had no interest in the outcome, and transfer served the interests of justice based on the location of parties, witnesses, and related matters.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case Hofmann v. EMI Resorts, Inc. is a contentious civil action filed in March 2009 concerning investments in Dominican Republic resort projects, foreclosures, alleged misuse of investor funds by defendants including the Elliotts and their controlled companies, and numerous ancillary disputes involving non-parties and foreign proceedings. The court addressed objections to a Special Master's report recommending referral of activities for criminal investigation, along with issues of contempt, document handling, and motions to intervene. It decided to report certain conduct to authorities, upheld contempt findings against the Elliotts and corporate defendants, rejected challenges to the Special Master's appointment and role, and resolved related procedural matters. The reasoning is based on the judge's detailed knowledge from multiple hearings, credibility assessments of witnesses, concerns over the handling of millions in investor money and attempts to regain project control post-foreclosure, and the judicial obligation under the Code of Conduct to notify authorities when a crime may have been committed.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedureproperty

The case involved a 17-year-old Medicaid recipient with cerebral palsy and incontinence who sued the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, claiming that the state's policy excluding coverage for prescribed incontinence supplies violated the federal Medicaid Act's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) requirements for individuals under 21. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, issuing a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction requiring the state to provide the supplies. The core reasoning was that the federal EPSDT provisions mandate coverage of all medically necessary services to ameliorate the recipient's condition, and Florida's categorical exclusion conflicted with this federal requirement, which is enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

healthcarefederal powercivil rights

This case involves a challenge by Southern Waste Systems and Sun Recycling against the City of Coral Springs, Waste Management of Florida, and the Broward Solid Waste Disposal District over local regulations and a franchise agreement governing the handling of construction and demolition debris. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Dormant Commerce Clause under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the rules restricted interstate and foreign commerce by limiting where waste could be processed or disposed. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the constitutional claims, finding no discrimination against out-of-state interests or undue burden on interstate commerce, as the regulations permitted haulers to transport debris or its components outside Florida and did not favor local actors. The plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief was dismissed, while the City's counterclaim for tortious interference was stayed pending appeal.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power

In Infante v. Bank of America Corp., the plaintiff claimed that Countrywide Bank (later acquired by the defendant) fraudulently inflated his stated income on applications for two mortgage loans used to finance and refinance Florida property, and that the lender failed to provide required Truth in Lending Act disclosures, allowing rescission of the loans. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss both the common-law fraud count and the TILA rescission count with prejudice. The fraud claim failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege successor liability or satisfy heightened pleading requirements. The TILA claim was dismissed because the loans fell outside the statute's rescission provisions and the plaintiff did not state a timely or proper basis for relief.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case involves a § 1983 claim by plaintiff Jean-Baptiste against police officer Gutierrez alleging excessive force during a foot pursuit and arrest after a vehicular chase of suspects linked to an armed home invasion. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's reports and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity. The court concluded that, viewing the facts most favorably to the plaintiff, the officer violated the plaintiff's clearly established right to be free from deadly force by firing fourteen shots—including multiple rounds after the plaintiff was already incapacitated on the ground—when less-than-lethal force would have sufficed.

civil rightscriminal law

Beatriz Marrero filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her conviction and sentence for money laundering tied to drug trafficking after her direct appeal was affirmed. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and denied the motion in full. The court rejected ineffective-assistance claims for failure to meet Strickland standards, found the prosecutorial-misconduct claim already resolved against her on appeal, held that Santos and Cuellar did not change the outcome because trial evidence showed she received commissions and satisfied the concealment element, and ruled the sentencing challenge procedurally barred. The case was closed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was an FLSA wage action filed by a restaurant waiter against his employer and its owner, alleging coverage under the statute's enterprise provisions. After defendants moved to dismiss based on their gross revenue falling below the $500,000 threshold, supported by affidavits and tax returns, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Defendants then sought attorney's fees against the plaintiff and his counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The court granted fees in part against plaintiff's counsel only, finding the suit frivolous because counsel failed to conduct adequate pre-suit investigation into the revenue issue and did not provide an affidavit of good faith. It awarded a lodestar amount of $1,950 for reasonable hours expended up to the dismissal date, using a $300 hourly rate, while denying fees for later court-requested filings and against the plaintiff personally.

labor & employmentprocedure