Paul C. Huck

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 Lloyds had initially accepted the claim but later rescinded the policy upon discovering that Worth Jewelers’ owner and principal, Mr.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.

business & regulatory

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.

immigration

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

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.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a Bahamian cruise operator that purchased stock in another foreign corporation to acquire a foreign-flagged vessel, alleging that various foreign and US-based defendants fraudulently misrepresented the vessel's condition, leading to claims under federal securities law, maritime fraud, and common-law theories such as negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that the securities claims failed under the Supreme Court's Morrison decision because the transaction was not on a US exchange or in the United States, the maritime claims lacked the required connection to traditional maritime activities or navigation, diversity jurisdiction was unavailable due to foreign parties on both sides, and no supplemental jurisdiction remained over the state-law claims.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Chicago Title Insurance Company suing individual real estate developers on their personal undertaking to indemnify the insurer for losses, costs, and fees arising from lien claims and a specific performance action related to a Florida resort property sale. The defendants moved to stay the federal action pending resolution of underlying state court litigation and a related bankruptcy proceeding. The court denied the motion, holding that the bankruptcy automatic stay did not extend to these non-debtor guarantors and that the undertaking constituted an enforceable guaranty of payment due on demand, without requiring prior adjudication of the underlying claims. The court reasoned that the contract terms allowed the insurer to act at its discretion and seek immediate payment, while noting that the exact amounts owed could be determined as the case proceeded.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved three consolidated actions where plaintiffs sought to certify classes against court reporting firms, alleging violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and unjust enrichment for charging the same per-page rate for computer-generated word indices as for court reporter transcripts. The court denied the motions for class certification, finding that individualized issues, such as varying negotiations for rates, differences between repeat and occasional customers, and potential requirements for proving reliance, predominated over common issues, and that the named plaintiffs were not adequate representatives. Consequently, the cases were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the failure to meet class action requirements under diversity jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case arose after VP Gables sued Cobalt Group for breach of contract and related claims; the suit was dismissed and Cobalt obtained an attorney's fee judgment against VP. Cobalt then initiated proceedings supplementary and impleaded The Collection, LLC as a potential transferee to collect on the judgment, but the court found The Collection not liable. The Collection moved to tax its defense costs against Cobalt under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) or Florida Statute § 56.29. The court denied the motion, holding that § 56.29 authorizes costs only against the judgment debtor and that The Collection was not a prevailing party under Rule 54(d) because it received no affirmative relief or court-ordered change in legal relations.

procedure

The case involved XL Insurance America seeking summary judgment on whether its commercial general liability policy covered claims stemming from a 2005 workplace forklift accident at Schratter Foods that severed an employee's fingers, where the injured employee Mark Ortiz obtained a consent judgment against co-employee Alain Rodriguez and then pursued the insurer as assignee. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment and denied Ortiz's cross-motion, holding that the policy provided no coverage. Core reasoning included that Rodriguez did not qualify as an insured for bodily injury to a co-employee under the policy's definitions, that multiple exclusions applied such as the workers' compensation and employer's liability exclusions, and that the insured failed to provide timely notice of the suit as required by policy conditions.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved Twin Palms Resort, LLC petitioning to quash an IRS third-party summons issued to AmSouth Bank seeking bank account records from 2001 to 2005 related to an examination of C.B. Harbour III and Melinda Harbour's tax returns. The Harbours, U.S. citizens from Tennessee, had purportedly moved to the Virgin Islands, formed entities qualifying for Economic Development Program tax credits, and filed returns there claiming 90 percent reductions on income from U.S. consulting work. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and denied the petition. It held that the IRS met the Powell factors by showing a legitimate purpose in determining bona fide residency and Virgin Islands source of income, that the records were relevant and not already possessed, and that all administrative steps were followed, while the petitioner did not establish an abuse of process.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

This case involved an attempt by 150 Nicaraguan plaintiffs to enforce a $97 million judgment from a Nicaraguan trial court against Dole Food Company and Dow Chemical Company in Florida federal court under the Florida Uniform Out-of-country Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act. The judgment arose from claims that the plaintiffs suffered infertility due to exposure to the pesticide DBCP while working on banana plantations in the 1970s and 1980s, awarded under Nicaragua's Special Law 364. The court denied recognition of the judgment, finding that the Nicaraguan proceedings lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction, were conducted under procedures incompatible with due process, violated Florida public policy, and were rendered by a judicial system lacking impartial tribunals. The core reasoning centered on Special Law 364's presumptions of liability, abbreviated summary procedures that prevented meaningful defense, non-waivable deposit requirements, and evidence of systemic judicial bias and corruption in Nicaragua.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a lawsuit by VP GABLES, LLC against Cobalt Group, Inc. for breach of contract, tortious interference, FDUTPA violations, and FUTSA violations stemming from acquisition negotiations and a nondisclosure agreement. After the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims with prejudice, the defendant sought attorneys' fees and costs under the NDA's prevailing-party fee-shifting provision and under FDUTPA. The court granted the motion in part, awarding fees solely under the NDA as the defendant qualified as the prevailing party following dismissal, but denied any recovery under FDUTPA because no additional effort was required to defend that claim. After reviewing billing records and adjusting hourly rates downward for reasonableness, the court reduced the requested amount and ordered the defendant to recover $121,087.50 in fees.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved four union activists arrested by Broward Sheriff's Office deputies on railroad tracks in Miami during the 2003 FTAA summit protests after receiving dispersal orders, with all charges later dismissed. Plaintiffs sued the City of Miami, BSO officials, and individual officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights through false arrest and interference with free speech. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, applying the standard of no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law while viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Core reasoning examined whether probable cause existed for the arrests, the adequacy of training and policies under Monell for municipal liability, qualified immunity for officers, and lack of evidence tying high-level officials to the specific arrests.

civil rightsfree speechcriminal lawprocedure

This case arose after Heritage Corporation recovered only $55,310 in a prior lawsuit against National Union under a fidelity bond for employee fraud losses exceeding $3 million, then sued National Union and its parent AIG under Florida bad-faith statutes for allegedly mishandling the claim and causing Heritage's business failure. Heritage sought over $5 million in damages. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that Heritage failed to satisfy statutory conditions precedent to a bad-faith action, that its claimed damages did not qualify under the statute as reasonably foreseeable from the alleged bad faith, that AIG was not Heritage's insurer and could not be vicariously liable, and that no genuine issues of material fact existed on these points.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a buyer who sued a condominium developer for allegedly violating the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act by failing to provide a required property report or register with HUD before signing a 2005 purchase agreement, and for breaching the contract by not completing construction within two years. The buyer sought rescission and return of his deposit. The court granted summary judgment to the developer on the federal claim, holding that the contract qualified for the statutory exemption under 15 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(2) because it included a two-year completion obligation with only legally recognized defenses to performance. Other contract provisions, such as a sales contingency and limitations on liability, did not render the completion obligation illusory or disqualify the exemption. The court then declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state-law breach-of-contract claim without prejudice.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved Clearplay, a maker of DVD filtering technology, suing Nissim after Nissim sent letters and a press release to retailer Target alleging that Clearplay's licensed DVD players infringed Nissim's patents, were unlicensed, and failed quality standards, leading Target to cancel purchase orders. Clearplay brought state-law tort claims, which Nissim moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that federal patent law preempts state tort claims arising from patent enforcement communications unless those communications were objectively baseless and made in bad faith, and that the complaint's allegations did not sufficiently plead the required bad-faith elements under Federal Circuit precedent.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved claims by Larry Klayman against Freedom's Watch, Inc. and its directors for federal and state trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition based on the similarity between Klayman's organization name "Freedom Watch, Inc." and the defendants' "Freedom’s Watch, Inc." The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. The core reasoning was that "Freedom Watch" is a descriptive term not entitled to trademark protection without proof of secondary meaning, which Klayman failed to establish due to minimal and sporadic use of the mark before the defendants' incorporation and activities.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerns a claim by plaintiff Abilio Alvarez against his former employer Key Transportation Service Corp. and its owner for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Alvarez worked as a dispatcher and later as Night Dispatch Manager, during which he was paid a salary without overtime, and he seeks backpay for hours worked over 40 per week. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that Alvarez was either an administrative or executive employee exempt from overtime requirements, or that all owed wages had already been paid. The court examined the plaintiff's job duties, including coordinating drivers, handling security, and limited supervisory tasks, while noting factual disputes regarding his authority to hire, fire, or discipline employees, to determine whether the exemptions applied under applicable FLSA regulations.

labor & employment