Daniel T. K. Hurley

The case involves a federal prisoner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 15-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The petitioner argued that one of his prior Florida convictions for resisting arrest with violence no longer qualified as a predicate "violent felony" after the Supreme Court's decision in Begay v. United States, which narrowed the ACCA's residual clause to require purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct similar to enumerated examples like burglary or arson. The court held that the petitioner could raise this claim on collateral review despite not challenging the predicate convictions at sentencing or on direct appeal, because a showing of actual innocence of the sentencing enhancement overcomes procedural default. It further ruled that the government could not now rely on an additional prior conviction to support the enhancement, as it had waived any objections to the original presentence report. The court therefore granted the motion and vacated the sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved attorney Henry Kaye, who filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that he was not bound by an arbitration provision arising from a personal injury settlement and related insurance dispute, along with a stay of arbitration proceedings under New York law. After the suit was filed, the arbitrator ruled that Kaye was not subject to the arbitration and denied any claims against him. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the arbitrator's favorable ruling rendered the case moot because no live controversy remained and the court could no longer provide meaningful relief. Dismissal was also required for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the complaint alleged neither diversity (no amount in controversy stated) nor a federal question, and the underlying claims appeared to be state-law breach of contract matters. The court further noted that without federal jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim, it lacked jurisdiction over the related state-law stay request.

procedure

This case was a patent infringement action brought by Michael Powell against Home Depot concerning a safety guard device for radial arm saws. A jury found that Home Depot willfully infringed claims of Powell's U.S. Patent No. 7,044,039 and awarded $15 million in reasonable royalty damages. After a subsequent bench trial, the court concluded that Home Depot had not proven inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence, so the patent remained enforceable. On post-trial motions, the court awarded enhanced damages of $3 million, attorneys' fees of $2.8 million, and prejudgment interest of $3,150,889.13, applying standards under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285 for willfulness-based enhancements and full compensation.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case arose after Tiara Condominium Association sued its insurance broker, Marsh, for breach of contract and negligence following disputes over wind-damage policy limits after two 2004 hurricanes; Tiara had settled a related suit against the insurer for less than it sought. Marsh made a $70,000 offer of judgment under Florida Statute § 768.79, which Tiara rejected, and the district court later entered summary judgment of no liability for Marsh. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report recommending partial grant of Marsh's motion for attorneys' fees and costs, overruling objections that the offer was invalid for lacking a certificate of service (as Rule 1.442 is procedural and inapplicable in federal court under Erie), that it was not made in good faith, and concerning the fee amount, while reducing the award after reviewing billing records for reasonableness under the statute's factors. The court awarded $1,775,602.50 in fees and $26,196.08 in costs.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves Curtis Sherrod, a high school history teacher, who alleged that the Palm Beach County School Board and officials retaliated against him for criticizing the district's implementation of a state law requiring infusion of African and African-American history into the curriculum, including by terminating his employment. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on claims including First Amendment retaliation, procedural due process, and equal protection. It determined that Sherrod's speech at school board meetings constituted protected speech made as a citizen on a matter of public concern under the First Amendment, leading to denial of summary judgment on the retaliation claim except in one instance, while granting it on the other claims.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a condominium association seeking coverage under a directors and officers liability insurance policy issued by Travelers for a lawsuit brought by a unit owner alleging negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty related to the association's failure to maintain the building's roof and air conditioning system, which led to water damage and mold after hurricanes. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Travelers, holding that it had no duty to defend because the claims fell under the policy's exclusion for losses arising out of damage to tangible property, including construction defects and mold. The reasoning was that the unit owner's claims directly arose from property damage and loss of use caused by the association's alleged failures, meeting the but-for causation test for the exclusion, and the amended complaint's additional economic loss allegations did not alter this outcome.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Jankus v. Edge Investors, L.P., the plaintiff buyer sued the defendant condominium developer for alleged violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA) arising from the 2005 purchase of a unit, claiming failure to provide a required property report and related rescission notice under 15 U.S.C. § 1703(c), omission of damage-limitation and cure provisions under § 1703(d), and related state-law breach-of-contract and FDUTPA claims. The defendant moved for reconsideration of a prior partial summary-judgment ruling, arguing the sale was exempt from ILSA under the two-year building-completion exemption in 15 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(2). The court granted reconsideration, withdrew its earlier opinion, and entered an amended order that granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ILSA claims while denying the plaintiff’s cross-motion, holding that the Purchase Agreement’s completion clause—subject only to legally recognized contract defenses—created a sufficiently definite two-year obligation to qualify for the exemption, and that the rescission claim was separately time-barred under § 1703(c). The court relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent interpreting comparable force-majeure language as limiting excusable delays to those that would support an impossibility defense.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Richard Jankus sued defendant Edge Investors under the federal Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA) and related Florida state laws, alleging that the developer failed to provide required property disclosures and a compliant purchase contract when selling a condominium unit, and that it breached the contract by not completing construction within two years. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the contract's completion clause qualified for ILSA's two-year exemption from certain disclosure rules, given its force majeure language tied to Florida's impossibility-of-performance doctrine. The court partially granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendant's, holding that the clause did not sufficiently limit excuses for delay to unforeseeable events and thus did not meet the statutory exemption requirements. It further addressed related claims under the contract and FDUTPA regarding rescission rights and title insurance representations.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company bringing claims against insurance brokers and related entities, including Infinity Financial Group, as well as insured parties and trusts, concerning the issuance of life insurance policies and related allegations of fraud, negligence, and rescission. The district court adopted in part the magistrate judge's recommendation by granting the defendants' motions to compel arbitration for claims against the broker defendants pursuant to their agreements but denying a stay of the non-arbitrable claims against the other defendants. The core reasoning, drawn from Klay v. All Defendants, was that arbitration is mandatory for covered claims but courts have discretion over non-arbitrable ones, and here parallel litigation was feasible because the rescission claims did not depend on the arbitration outcome, the arbitrable claims did not predominate, and a stay would be inefficient.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Wackenhut Corporation suing the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging that the union's campaign of protests, demonstrations, and public statements constituted extortion under the Hobbs Act and related violations. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that the complaint failed to state a claim. The core reasoning was that the alleged activities did not amount to extortion because SEIU did not acquire any property rights from Wackenhut that could be exercised, transferred, or sold, as required by Supreme Court precedent in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women. Without valid predicate acts, the RICO claims could not proceed.

criminal lawlabor & employment

Sensormatic sued TAG, Phenix, and former employee Gadonniex for infringement of two patents covering disposable acousto-magnetic electronic article surveillance labels, along with claims for trade secret misappropriation under Florida law, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and FDUTPA violations, seeking injunctive relief and other remedies. The defendants counterclaimed for patent invalidity and unenforceability. The parties stipulated to infringement of the asserted claims, and after a bench trial the court found the patents valid and enforceable, that Gadonniex had misappropriated trade secrets and breached duties by disclosing confidential information, that TAG had aided and abetted and engaged in unfair practices, and that Sensormatic was entitled to relief. Judgment was entered for Sensormatic on its claims and against the counterclaims, based on the trial evidence concerning the technical features of the labels, the confidentiality of Sensormatic's specifications, and the defendants' conduct.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case centers on a dispute over a valuable Elvis photograph discovered and allegedly lost or destroyed during the remediation of a building contaminated by anthrax. American Personality Photos, LLC (APP) acquired rights to the photo and other assets from Broken Sound, LLC, which had entered into a remediation contract containing an arbitration clause with Sabre Technical Services, LLC (Mason's company). Mason moved to dismiss APP's complaint and compel arbitration based on that clause. The court denied the motion, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The reasoning was that APP was not a signatory to the remediation agreement, the contract was not intended to benefit APP, and no equitable or agency theories applied to bind APP to arbitration.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved Microsoft suing Big Boy Distribution and its principal for copyright infringement after they imported thousands of units of discounted Student Media software manufactured in Ireland under a Jordanian educational licensing agreement and resold it to non-educational buyers in the United States. The court granted Microsoft's motions for partial summary judgment on liability and on the defendants' counterclaims while denying Big Boy's cross-motion asserting a first-sale defense. It reasoned that 17 U.S.C. § 602(a) bars unauthorized importation of foreign-made copies even after an initial sale abroad, that the first-sale doctrine of § 109(a) does not apply to such copies, and that the software's licensing restrictions and labeling confirmed it was never authorized for U.S. distribution outside qualified educational channels.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which RTG Furniture Corporation seeks recovery from Industrial Risk Insurers for business interruption losses allegedly caused by Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Jeanne in 2004 under an all-risk property policy. The court denied both parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment, vacated a prior bifurcation order, and denied a motion to strike. The core reasoning is that material factual disputes exist regarding whether RTG's brokers acted as its agents in negotiating policy terms and whether the insured had input into drafting specific clauses, which affects whether ambiguities in the named storm occurrence deductible and related provisions should be construed against the insurer. The opinion notes that the policy does not expressly exclude windstorms and discusses the applicability of contra preferentem only when the insurer solely drafted the language.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this ERISA case, plaintiff Grace Miller sued Prudential Insurance after it terminated her long-term disability benefits for depression following a 24-month period, citing a policy limitation for disabilities due in whole or part to mental illness; Miller argued the depression stemmed from a prior back injury and chronic pain, making the limit inapplicable. The court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment, affirming the benefits termination after 2004 and ordering restitution of an alleged overpayment tied to a social security award. The core reasoning was that the plan gave Prudential discretion to determine applicability of the mental illness limitation, substantial evidence supported finding the disability was at least partly mental, and the administrator's decision was not arbitrary or capricious under the applicable standard of review.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Brian and Valerie Ditthardt sued defendant North Ocean Condos, LP, seeking to rescind their August 2005 condominium purchase agreements under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA), 15 U.S.C. § 1703(c)-(d), on grounds that they had not received required property reports and the agreements lacked statutory provisions. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the rescission claims as untimely, because the complaint was filed approximately 33 months after the agreements were signed. The court reasoned that the specific two-year rescission periods provided in §§ 1703(c) and (d) applied, rather than the general three-year limitations period in § 1711(b), and that equitable tolling was unavailable. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint asserting damages claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1709.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case involved a patent infringement claim by plaintiffs including Boldstar Technical, LLC against Home Depot and related defendants concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,044,039, with other claims like tortious interference and fraud having already been dismissed. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Boldstar with prejudice on the ground that it lacked standing. Boldstar had no interest in the patent as assignee, licensee, or otherwise, and under Article III and 35 U.S.C. § 281, only a patentee or successor with exclusionary rights may sue for infringement. The court reasoned that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because the suit had been pending for over a year with substantial litigation, the actual patentee Powell remained as plaintiff to prosecute the claim, and allowing Boldstar to refile later would serve no purpose.

procedureproperty

This case involves a buyer who sued the seller and related company under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, alleging failure to provide a required property report and seeking damages plus rescission of a condominium purchase contract. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing exemptions under the federal statute for smaller developments, while the plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the ILSA claim. The court denied the defendants' motions and granted the plaintiff's motion, ruling that storage units do not qualify as lots under the ILSA and that a violation of ILSA also constitutes a per se violation of the state unfair trade practices statute. Summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff on both counts, and the motion regarding the corporate defendant's name was deemed moot after amendment.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a dispute between Meridian Ventures, LLC and One North Ocean, LLC over a contract for the purchase of a condominium unit, where the buyer sought a refund of its $350,000 deposit under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act after the developer allegedly failed to make required disclosures. The court granted the buyer's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the developer's, ruling that contracts receiving the exemption under 15 U.S.C. § 1702(b) must still comply with the revocation provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1703(d). The court's reasoning centered on the statute's consumer-protection purpose, which requires that exemptions be interpreted narrowly, and that the language and history of the Act support applying the buyer's revocation rights even to partially exempt developments.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act by plaintiff Claudia Dwyer, who was born without a left hand and worked as a design consultant for defendant Ethan Allen Retail, Inc. until her termination in 2006; she alleged the termination was due to illegal disability discrimination. The court denied the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's declaration but granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that even assuming the plaintiff was disabled under the statutes, she failed to show the employer's stated reason for termination—violation of its conflict-of-interest policy by referring customers to outside providers—was a pretext for discrimination, as the policy was applied consistently, including to a non-disabled employee, and minor inconsistencies in testimony did not create a genuine issue of material fact. The court noted it does not second-guess legitimate business decisions.

civil rightslabor & employment