This case involved jewelry wholesalers (the Consignors) who sued Lloyds under an excess jewelers’ block insurance policy after $5.6 million in consigned merchandise was allegedly stolen from Worth Jewelers. Lloyds had initially accepted the claim but later rescinded the policy upon discovering that Worth Jewelers’ owner and principal, Mr. Havens, had staged the robbery, committed insurance fraud, and made material misrepresentations on policy applications about inventory values and checks. The court granted summary judgment to Lloyds and denied the Consignors’ motion, holding that Havens and Worth Jewelers were alter egos, so his fraud and misrepresentations were imputed to the company. As a result, Worth Jewelers was not an “innocent assured,” and recovery was barred under specific policy provisions. The decision rested on the doctrine of uberrimae fidei, Florida insurance statutes, and the alter-ego principle without needing to reach other issues.
The case involved Camila Maria Silva-Hernandez, a Brazilian citizen who overstayed a B-2 visa and later married a Cuban permanent resident. She applied for adjustment of status under Section 1 of the Cuban Adjustment Act, which permits non-Cuban spouses of Cubans to seek permanent residency. USCIS approved the application but recorded her residency date as the date of her marriage rather than applying the Act's rollback provision to set it 30 months earlier. Silva-Hernandez sued, arguing that the agency's policy of not extending full rollback benefits to non-Cuban spouses violated the statute and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, upholding the agency's interpretation and date assignment.
Melvin Gavron sued Weather Shield Manufacturing, alleging that the company misrepresented the quality of its Legacy Series windows and doors by claiming they were properly sealed and reinforced against air and water infiltration. Gavron claimed the products were materially defective in their sealing, finishing, weather-stripping, and alignment, leading to leaks, rot, and delamination, which violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) in addition to breaching an express warranty. Weather Shield moved to dismiss the FDUTPA count under Rule 12(b)(6), but the court denied the motion after reviewing the detailed allegations of manufacturing nonconformities confirmed by building code officials and the Eleventh Circuit's guidance in Fitzpatrick v. General Mills on FDUTPA pleading standards. The court concluded that the complaint adequately alleged deceptive practices and causation without requiring individualized proof of reliance at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
The case involved Sunbeam Television Corp., operator of WSVN in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale market, suing Nielsen Media Research, Inc., the sole provider of television viewership ratings, over Nielsen's 2008 switch to Local People Meter methodology for audience measurement. Sunbeam alleged that the change produced inaccurate ratings for certain demographics, causing it substantial revenue losses, and claimed this resulted from Nielsen's various exclusionary and monopolistic practices in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, along with related contract and unfair trade practices claims. The court granted summary judgment to Nielsen on the antitrust claims, finding insufficient evidence that Nielsen's conduct excluded any actual or potential competitor from the market or caused antitrust injury beyond the effects of its monopoly position itself. The decision rested on the lack of a willing and able competitor that could have entered or expanded but for the challenged practices, combined with the inherent limitations and imprecision of any viewership sampling method. The court deferred ruling on the breach of contract and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act counts pending further briefing.
Dr. Tie Qian, a physician hired under a temporary appointment at a VA medical center, had his medical staff privileges revoked and his employment terminated following reviews that identified issues with his clinical practices and documentation. He sued the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, claiming these actions occurred without constitutionally required due process. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that temporary appointees under 38 U.S.C. § 7405 have no protected property interest in continued employment or privileges, and that VHA Handbook 1100.19 controls over any conflicting provisions in the Medical Staff Bylaws, permitting termination without additional procedural safeguards.
This case arose from the 2009 failure of BankUnited, FSB, with the FDIC appointed as receiver, followed by Chapter 11 filings by the bank's parent and subsidiaries. The plaintiffs (debtors and affiliates) filed $415 million in claims against the receivership, while the FDIC filed over $4.9 billion in claims against the debtors; the central dispute concerned whether the FDIC's failure to allow or disallow the plaintiffs' claims within the 180-day statutory period under Title 12 automatically deemed those claims allowed. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on that issue, granted in part the FDIC's motion to withdraw the bankruptcy reference to resolve it, and denied the FDIC's motion to dismiss without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the statute's use of 'shall' for the 180-day deadline triggers claimants' appeal rights but does not impose automatic allowance absent explicit language on consequences, consistent with the statutory scheme and unlike provisions addressing claimants' own deadlines.
