The case involves Edward Blackshear suing Miami Beach police officer Peter Wyatt and the City of Miami Beach after Wyatt arrested him in unincorporated Miami-Dade County while assisting a funeral procession. Blackshear alleged federal claims under §1983 for unlawful search and seizure and malicious prosecution against Wyatt, plus a state malicious prosecution claim, and a false arrest claim against the city, asserting that he obeyed orders, faced no probable cause, and that Wyatt lacked authority to arrest outside city limits; charges were later dismissed. The court denied both defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the complaint adequately alleged a lack of lawful order or probable cause, that Wyatt was not acting within any mutual aid authority, and that qualified immunity did not apply at the pleading stage. The decision rested on accepting the well-pleaded facts as true, including that the arrest affidavit was disputed, and on established standards for Fourth Amendment violations and Florida false arrest law.
This case involves a dispute between Miranda Construction Development, Inc. and its insurer, Mid-Continent Casualty Company, over whether the insurer must defend and indemnify Miranda in a lawsuit brought by homeowners alleging defective construction of their home. The court granted summary judgment to Mid-Continent, ruling that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify Miranda. The decision was based on the commercial general liability policy's "your work" exclusion, which bars coverage for damage to the insured's own completed work, as the underlying complaint alleged only defects and damage to the home itself with no claims involving other property or sudden accidental injury. The court applied Florida law, noting that the duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the complaint and that no subcontractor exception applied due to lack of supporting allegations or evidence.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
This case involved a dispute between Mars-affiliated companies and Walton & Post, a Miami-based distributor, over a 1987 importer agreement for products in the Dominican Republic. After the agreement was terminated in 2007, Walton & Post sued in Dominican courts under local Law No. 173 seeking registration as exclusive distributor and termination compensation, ultimately obtaining a multimillion-dollar judgment on appeal. The plaintiffs then filed suit in the Southern District of Florida asserting claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. The court granted the motion to dismiss, abstaining from exercising jurisdiction on grounds of international comity because the Dominican proceedings involved substantially the same parties and issues, had been litigated first, and would avoid piecemeal litigation in a busy federal district. The action was dismissed without reaching the defendant's other arguments for dismissal.
This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which Mid-Continent Casualty Company sought declaratory relief on whether its policy covered claims against Southgate Gardens Condominium Association and Guitree Basdeo arising from alleged construction defects, and whether certain policy defenses applied. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and denied Mid-Continent's motions for summary judgment on the coverage counts while granting the defendants' corresponding motions, also denying most of Mid-Continent's affirmative defenses. The core reasoning was that Florida's statutory estoppel provision barred Mid-Continent from asserting coverage defenses due to untimely reservation of rights, the insured's failure to cooperate did not release the insurer as a matter of law, Southgate qualified as a named insured, and the underlying events constituted three separate occurrences subject to a $3 million limit.
The case involved Vero Technical Support, Inc., a government contractor providing weather-related services to U.S. Army sites, which sued the Department of Defense after the agency decided to insource those services rather than renew the contract, citing policy changes from the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. The plaintiff sought to challenge the insourcing decision under the Administrative Procedure Act and requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to maintain the contract. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that disputes involving federal procurement or contracts fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act or Contract Disputes Act. The district court adopted the recommendation in full, granted the motion to dismiss, denied the injunction requests without prejudice, and closed the case.
The case involved TracFone Wireless suing SND Cellular, Inc. and Dilip Daswani for bulk purchasing its subsidized prepaid phones, unlocking or reflashing the devices to bypass network restrictions and proprietary software, and reselling them for use on other networks. TracFone alleged that these actions infringed its trademarks and copyrights, violated the DMCA by circumventing technological protections, breached contract terms printed on the phone packaging, and caused it to lose subsidies and airtime revenue. The court granted TracFone's motion for default judgment, finding the defendants liable on claims including federal trademark infringement, copyright infringement, unfair competition, and DMCA violations. It entered a permanent injunction against the defendants and awarded statutory damages based on the uncontested facts in the complaint establishing TracFone's ownership of valid marks and the unauthorized alteration and trafficking of the phones.