This case involves Hong Kong plaintiffs suing Florida-based Cordis Corporation in federal court over injuries allegedly caused by a defective pacemaker designed, manufactured, and tested in Florida; the device was implanted and later replaced in Hong Kong. After plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed an earlier state-court action where Hong Kong law was selected, the defendant moved to dismiss the federal suit on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing Hong Kong was the more convenient forum. The court denied the motion, holding that collateral estoppel did not apply because the state action ended without a final judgment and that the private and public interest factors under Piper Aircraft and Gulf Oil weighed against dismissal, primarily because the core events and evidence centered on the defendant's Florida operations. The court therefore retained jurisdiction and ordered the defendant to answer the complaint.
The case involved a newspaper publisher challenging the City of Fort Lauderdale's enforcement of Florida Statute section 337.406, which bans commercial uses such as sales on the rights-of-way of state-maintained roads, against its vendors selling papers to motorists. After residents complained and the city commission directed enforcement, police issued citations to vendors, prompting the publisher to sue for a permanent injunction on First Amendment grounds. The court found that the statute, as applied to news vendors, violated the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press because newspaper sales on public streets constitute protected activity, the law was not narrowly tailored to address traffic safety concerns, and it was enforced selectively without sufficient justification. The court granted the injunction preventing enforcement against the plaintiff's vendors while noting that other commercial activities could still be regulated. It declined to reach related equal protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case concerns the News and Sun-Sentinel Company's lawsuit against the City of Fort Lauderdale to block enforcement of a state statute banning newspaper sales on public rights-of-way and roads, on grounds including press freedom and equal protection. After a bench trial on the preliminary injunction motion, the Miami Herald sought leave to file a post-trial amicus curiae memorandum. The court denied the motion, finding that the Herald had long been aware of the case but chose not to participate earlier despite multiple opportunities, that existing counsel had adequately presented the issues, and that the untimely request lacked sufficient justification.
In this civil forfeiture case brought under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), the United States sought forfeiture of a house in Miami, Florida, owned by Carlos Veccio, after a confidential informant and wiretap investigation revealed that Veccio used the property in connection with a cocaine transaction on September 8, 1987. Veccio, the legal titleholder, had been convicted in a parallel criminal proceeding of knowingly possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, and evidence showed that meetings and the exchange of purchase money occurred at the residence. After trial, the court granted the government's motion for involuntary dismissal, concluding that probable cause existed of a substantial connection between the property and the drug offense and that the claimant failed to prove otherwise. The court held that the entire parcel was forfeitable because the illegal activity took place on the premises.
This case involved a target company, Burnup & Sims, suing entities controlled by Victor Posner that were acquiring its stock in a takeover bid, alleging violations of Sections 7 and 8 of the Clayton Act due to potential lessening of competition in the telephone and CATV service industry and interlocking directorships. The court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the Section 8 claim and motion to dismiss the Section 7 claim. It reasoned that a full merger would eliminate any separate entities capable of having interlocking directors under Section 8, and that the target company lacked standing under Section 7 because it was not injured by any reduction in competition but instead stood to benefit from a change in control, with other parties better positioned to enforce antitrust laws.
Orange Ridge, Inc., operating as New Frontier Package & Lounge, cashed various checks including federal social security refunds and state welfare payments; after discovering the checks were stolen and forged, the United States and Florida seized funds from the company's bank accounts to recover the proceeds. The plaintiff sued in federal court claiming the seizures violated due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and seeking damages, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2401(a). The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that sovereign immunity barred the claims against both the United States and the State of Florida. The reasoning was that neither sovereign had waived immunity for these suits in federal district court, the claims lacked a plausible foundation for invoking federal jurisdiction under Bell v. Hood exceptions, and any takings claim against the United States belonged in the Claims Court under the Tucker Act while state claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
