Donald L. Graham

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.

civil rightscriminal 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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

The case involved a defendant convicted of transporting and possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252, after which the government sought restitution for two identified victims under the applicable federal statute. Following an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge recommended denying restitution, and the district court adopted that recommendation after correcting a minor factual error in the report. The core reasoning was that the government failed to establish that the victims' losses were proximately caused by the defendant's specific criminal conduct, as opposed to the original abuse or other distributors, and thus did not meet the statutory requirements for restitution. The court also addressed procedural timing issues under 18 U.S.C. § 3664 to ensure compliance with the 90-day post-sentencing deadline.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Sara Escala and Kelle Ann George sued Victoria's Secret in Florida state court under the Florida Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliation for reporting violations of state and federal anti-discrimination and labor laws. The defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing that the claims implicated significant federal issues requiring interpretation of statutes like Title VII and the FLSA. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that federal question jurisdiction was absent under the well-pleaded complaint rule because the plaintiffs sought relief solely under state law, did not assert federal claims, and could prove their claims by reference to state violations without needing to interpret federal law. The court emphasized that removal jurisdiction must be narrowly construed and that doubts favor remand to state court.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission sued Bernadette Bowden and related defendants for violating multiple sections of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission regulations by operating a fraudulent high-yield investment scheme that solicited funds from hundreds of investors through false promises of daily fixed returns on commodity futures, options, Forex, and precious metals trading. After Bowden failed to respond to the properly served complaint, the court entered default against her. The court granted the Commission's motion for default judgment, issuing a permanent injunction barring future violations, ordering restitution to victims, and imposing a civil monetary penalty, based on the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint being taken as true due to the default and supporting evidence of the scheme's misrepresentations and unregistered operations.

business & regulatory

This case involved Sharp General Contractors suing its insurer Mt. Hawley for denying coverage under a commercial general liability policy after a fire caused damage at a construction project, leading to a subrogation claim against Sharp; Mt. Hawley had denied the claim due to Sharp's failure to comply with policy conditions requiring it to name subcontractors as additional insureds and obtain hold-harmless agreements. The district court granted Mt. Hawley's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the policy did not provide coverage for the claimed loss. The court first determined that the Florida Claims Administration Statute applies to surplus line insurers, but then held that Mt. Hawley's defense was not a coverage defense under the statute because the policy's conditions explicitly voided coverage for noncompliance, and the statute does not create coverage that the policy never provided.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Nirvana Condominium Association's lawsuit against its insurer, QBE Insurance Corp., over an unpaid claim for wind and water damage to the condominium complex caused by Hurricane Wilma under a commercial residential property insurance policy purchased in 2005. The complaint asserted three counts: breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory judgment. The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss Count II without leave to amend, finding that under Florida law such a contractual good-faith claim cannot proceed until the underlying coverage dispute is resolved, similar to statutory bad-faith claims. The court denied the motion as to Count III, holding that the pleadings sufficiently alleged a definite, concrete dispute over coverage rights that satisfied the case-or-controversy requirement for declaratory relief. The breach-of-contract count was not challenged at this stage.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, Stiefel Laboratories, a Delaware corporation based in Florida, sued Galderma Laboratories, based in Texas, alleging that Galderma induced Stiefel's former sales representatives to violate non-solicitation provisions in their Confidential Disclosure Agreements by contacting certain physicians. Galderma moved to transfer venue from the Southern District of Florida to the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing that convenience and other factors favored the transfer. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiffs' choice of their home forum would not be disturbed because the balance of private and public interest factors—including convenience of parties and witnesses, access to proof, and compulsory process—did not strongly favor transfer to Texas. The court noted that the action could have been brought in Texas but found insufficient justification to override the plaintiffs' selection after weighing the relevant considerations.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved two actions by pro se petitioners against the IRS concerning tax liens and related documents. The first action was a FOIA request for tax records where petitioners alleged delay and incomplete production; the second was a quiet title action under 28 U.S.C. § 2410 challenging procedural aspects of 2001 tax assessments underlying liens on their property. The court granted the IRS's motions for summary judgment in both matters, ruling that the IRS had conducted a reasonable search and produced responsive documents in the FOIA action, and that the quiet title claims were barred by res judicata based on prior Tax Court and Eleventh Circuit decisions resolving the same issues. The petitioners' cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, leading to dismissal of both cases.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

This case involved pro se petitioners who sued an IRS agent in state court to remove a federal tax lien from their property and sought related relief. After removal to federal court, the district court addressed the government's motion to dismiss on grounds including improper party, lack of service, sovereign immunity, the Anti-Injunction Act, Declaratory Judgment Act, and 26 U.S.C. § 7433. The court granted the motion in part by allowing the petitioners to substitute the United States as respondent and perfect service within set deadlines, permitting the quiet title claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2410 to proceed if those steps were completed, but dismissing the § 7433 claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and meet the statute of limitations, while also denying declaratory relief. The reasoning centered on the limited waiver of sovereign immunity for quiet title actions, procedural requirements for suing the United States, and statutory restrictions barring the other requested remedies.

taxesfederal powerpropertyprocedure

This case involved a third-party defendant, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, removing a severed state court action to federal court after being sued by Sharp General Contractors for declaratory relief in a subrogation matter. The plaintiff moved to remand, claiming the removal notice was filed more than thirty days after service of the complaint. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that third-party defendants generally cannot remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), but once the state court severed the third-party claims, Mt. Hawley became a proper defendant eligible to remove. The removal was timely because it occurred within thirty days of the severance order, as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, Campero USA Corp. sued STPC Partners, L.P. seeking a declaration that their Area Development Agreement for Pollo Campero franchises had been terminated due to STPC's failure to meet development schedules, along with damages for breach. STPC moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration under the agreement's arbitration clause. The court denied the motion, holding that the parties' contract established a dual system under which disputes involving termination without notice pursuant to section 6.02 are exempt from arbitration and may be litigated. The court reasoned that Campero's claim fell squarely within that exception, while arguments about the sufficiency of default notices addressed the merits of the termination rather than arbitrability. The agreement's express language controlled, overriding the general presumption in favor of arbitration.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned whether plaintiff Gerald Bagwell, employed as a Network Operation Engineer by Florida Broadband, LLC, was entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or qualified for exemptions as an administrative or computer professional employee. After a bench trial, the court concluded that Bagwell was exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements. The decision rested on findings that his role involved discretion and independent judgment in network design, protocol specification, and system maintenance; that he possessed relevant education and certifications; and that his duties aligned with the regulatory definitions for the administrative and computer professional exemptions.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a personal injury claim by plaintiff Judith Lipford against Carnival Corp., alleging she was injured while on an excursion marketed by the cruise line while a passenger on its ship. The passenger contract included a forum selection clause requiring disputes to be filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida within one year, but Lipford sued in state court and filed a parallel federal action, prompting Carnival to seek dismissal in state court based on the clause. The state court rejected the clause as invalid and unenforceable, leaving the state case pending, while in federal court Lipford moved to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the state action to preserve her claims if the limitations period expired. The court denied the motion to stay and dismissed the federal case without prejudice, reasoning that the requested stay was indefinite and thus immoderate, and that Lipford had chosen to proceed in state court rather than filing originally in federal court to avoid any limitations risk.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Mitchell Epstein's dispute with a Toys-R-Us store in Coral Springs, Florida, over its return policy for a defective toy, which offered only store credit (Geoffrey Dollars) rather than cash; Epstein attempted to circumvent the policy by making small purchases and returns, exchanging credit with other customers, and refusing the manager's request to leave, leading to police being called and his arrest for disorderly conduct. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment from the City of Coral Springs, individual police officers, Toys-R-Us, and Epstein. It granted summary judgment to all defendants and denied Epstein's partial motion, closing the case. The core reasoning was that the officers had probable cause to arrest based on Epstein's loud, agitated conduct and refusal to leave private property; Toys-R-Us faced no liability for spoliation of evidence because no videotape of the incident existed or was destroyed, and ample other evidence was available; and no facts supported claims against the city or officers.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorycivil rightstorts & liability

This case concerns a habeas corpus petition filed by Timothy Brown, who was convicted in 1993 as a principal to the first-degree murder of a sheriff's deputy and sentenced to life imprisonment. After previously finding that Brown had demonstrated actual innocence under Schlup v. Delo, meaning no reasonable jury would have convicted him with the new evidence, the court is now addressing the merits of his constitutional claims, including violations of due process in waiving Miranda rights, coerced confession, insufficient evidence, jury misinstruction, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court applies the pre-AEDPA standards for review since the petition was filed in 1995, reinstates previously dismissed claims, and proceeds to evaluate whether Brown's constitutional rights were violated despite the actual innocence finding not directly entitling him to relief.

criminal law