Richard A. Lazzara

This case involves commercial liability insurers seeking a declaratory judgment that they owe no duty to defend or indemnify drywall subcontractors for bodily injury and property damage claims arising from defective Chinese-manufactured drywall installed in Florida homes. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment solely on the duty to indemnify, asking the court to resolve choice-of-law questions under Florida's lex loci contractus doctrine and to hold that a total pollution exclusion in the policies bars coverage. The court denied the motion as premature, explaining that no discovery had occurred and that determining the place where the insurance contracts were formed required additional factual development before the choice-of-law and coverage issues could be decided.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Holland v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, plaintiff Susan Holland sued defendant debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging that the company made over 30 harassing phone calls about an alleged $2,000 AT&T debt without properly identifying itself, leaving voicemails, or sending required debt validation notices. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of evidence of a covered "debt," insufficient proof of harassment or deception, proper disclosures in some calls, and compliance with notice requirements via a letter sent to plaintiff's son. The court granted the motion in part as to the withdrawn § 1692g claim but denied it on the remaining claims, finding genuine issues of material fact under the "least sophisticated debtor" standard regarding the volume and nature of calls, identity disclosures, and potential deceptive practices that a jury must resolve.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Walker-Hall v. American International Life Assurance Co., plaintiff Bobbi Walker-Hall sued under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, to recover long-term disability benefits allegedly due under an employer-sponsored plan after her insurer denied continuing coverage for a knee injury and hallux rigidus of the toe. The court applied the Eleventh Circuit's multi-step review framework to the administrative record and determined de novo that the denial was not wrong. For the knee condition, the plaintiff had not satisfied the plan's "regular care of a physician" requirement, and for the toe condition, she submitted insufficient medical evidence that it prevented her from working as a litigation specialist. The court granted the defendant's motion for final judgment.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In Cherry v. City of St. Petersburg, plaintiff Aunterrio Cherry sued a St. Petersburg police officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when serving a misdemeanor arrest warrant by tasing him. The court denied the officer's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. It determined that disputed facts must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor at this stage, under which the plaintiff was compliant with commands, posed no threat, and did not advance toward the officer, making the tasing disproportionate. The court further found that the right to be free from such force was clearly established under precedent involving similar taser use on non-threatening individuals.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death claim brought by Mercedes Bedoya on behalf of the survivors of Wilder Bedoya, who was killed in a 2009 Florida car accident while driving for his employer. The plaintiff sought uninsured motorist coverage under an auto insurance policy issued by Travelers to the employer, arguing that there was no valid rejection of such coverage and that the insurer had violated Florida law by not offering it. Travelers counterclaimed for a declaration that the policy provided no UM benefits. The court granted summary judgment to Travelers, holding that the employer's authorized representative had validly rejected UM coverage on an initial policy form in 2007, that this rejection carried forward by operation of Florida law to the renewal policy in effect at the time of the accident because no different selection was made on the 2008 renewal form, and that the forms complied with statutory requirements.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's order confirming Chapter 11 reorganization plans for two related assisted living facility entities and granting a cramdown over the objection of their primary secured and unsecured creditor, SPCP Group, LLC. The district court affirmed the confirmation, finding the plans feasible under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(11) based on the debtors' post-petition performance and cash position. It also upheld the application of the cramdown provision under § 1129(b), approving an interest rate of 5.25% using the prime rate plus a 2% adjustment as consistent with Supreme Court precedent in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., and accepting the property valuation of $5.4 million.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a physician employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs who was discharged in November 2008 and sought to appeal the termination through a VA Disciplinary Appeals Board. The plaintiff, who had worked in various temporary and part-time roles before becoming a U.S. citizen in 2006 and converting to permanent full-time status on November 12, 2006, argued that his prior service should count toward the two-year probationary period under 38 U.S.C. § 7403, entitling him to an appeal. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on count one, holding that he remained a probationary employee at the time of discharge because the probationary period began only upon his formal conversion to permanent status. The decision relied on interpretations from the Eighth and Tenth Circuits rather than an unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion, concluding that the VA had not completed the conversion until November 12, 2006, so the discharge fell within the probationary window and no appeal right existed; judgment was also entered for the defendant on count two seeking mandamus relief.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

In George v. United States, the plaintiff filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his enhanced sentence as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) for felon-in-possession of a firearm, which relied on a prior Florida conviction for escape from work release as a predicate violent felony. The court decided to vacate the sentence and order resentencing after determining that the escape conviction no longer qualifies as a violent felony. The core reasoning was that Supreme Court precedent in Begay and Chambers established through a categorical approach that failure to report for confinement lacks the requisite violent or aggressive conduct, the government conceded this point, and the newly recognized right applies retroactively despite arguments regarding timeliness and procedural default.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

This case involved a plaintiff seeking to overturn the defendant insurance company's decision, as administrator of an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan, to discontinue long-term disability benefits on the grounds that she was not medically precluded from working in any occupation. The defendant moved for summary judgment, citing medical expert reviews finding the plaintiff capable of sedentary or light work and a vocational employability analysis identifying suitable alternative occupations. The court applied the Eleventh Circuit's six-step framework for ERISA denial-of-benefits cases, first conducting a de novo review that concluded the decision was not wrong because it was supported by reliable medical and vocational evidence in the administrative record, and then determining under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard that any conflict of interest did not render the decision unreasonable. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant and entered final judgment in its favor.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

In Brisson v. Ford Motor Co., a proposed class of owners and lessees sued Ford Motor Company under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, claiming breach of express and implied warranties based on an alleged front-end oscillation defect in 2005-2007 F-250 and F-350 trucks. The district court granted Ford's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Applying Florida's lex loci contractus choice-of-law rule for contract claims rather than Delaware law, the court found that plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing Ford had refused or failed to repair covered defects within a reasonable time under the limited express warranty, and that no privity existed to support the implied warranty claim against the manufacturer. The court further concluded that allowing further amendment would be futile given the pleading deficiencies.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a securities class action alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with a secondary public offering. After the original lead plaintiff was found to lack standing, the complaint was amended to add Villere, an investment advisor with discretionary authority over its customers' accounts, as a named plaintiff. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Villere lacked standing as it did not suffer a direct injury and that the PSLRA barred adding a new plaintiff without lead-plaintiff approval. The court denied the motions, ruling that Villere has standing because it purchased the securities with full authority to manage customer accounts and that the PSLRA permits adding named plaintiffs to assist lead plaintiffs who lack standing on all claims. The court further held that the substantive allegations were sufficient to survive dismissal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case is a consolidated class action securities lawsuit brought by investors against Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. (CFHI), its officers and directors, underwriters, and auditor, alleging material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with a 2005 secondary public offering of CFHI stock. The complaint claims that defendants falsely portrayed the company's lending practices as conservative, particularly regarding high-risk 'construction-to-permanent' loans tied to a Florida development scheme involving investor 'flipping' of homes, in violation of Section 11 and other securities laws. Defendants moved to dismiss, contending the pleadings failed to satisfy the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) standards and that plaintiffs could not trace their shares to the allegedly defective registration statement. The court ruled that the complaint meets PSLRA requirements for some defendants but not others, while noting that general allegations of share tracing can suffice to survive dismissal on standing grounds.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs seeking to amend their class action complaint against an insurance company for alleged violations of Florida's Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act prohibiting 'sliding' in the sale of insurance products. The court modified its prior dismissal order to make it with prejudice and denied the motion for rehearing and leave to file a fourth amended complaint. It reasoned that, under Erie, it must follow current Florida law which focuses on legislative intent rather than the benefited class, and found no intent to create a private right of action in the statute.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Martinez v. Ford Motor Co., plaintiffs, the mothers of two women killed in a single-vehicle rollover crash of a 2002 Ford Mustang, brought product liability claims against Ford Motor Company alleging negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, and breach of warranty based on allegedly defective seat belts and the use of tempered rather than laminated glass in the vehicle's windows. Ford moved for partial summary judgment on the window-related claims, arguing they were preempted by federal motor vehicle safety standards. The court granted the motion, holding that the claims were impliedly preempted under the Supremacy Clause because Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 expressly permits the use of tempered glass as one of several approved glazing options, and a successful state-law design defect claim would conflict with the federal regulatory scheme by foreclosing that choice. The court relied on precedents such as Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. to conclude that the federal standard's preservation of manufacturer options preempts conflicting state tort claims.

torts & liabilityfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a commercial fishing advocacy group's challenge to a federal regulation requiring vessel monitoring systems on Gulf of Mexico reef fish vessels, including under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act's community impact requirements, and the Fourth Amendment. The court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the complaint was time-barred under the Magnuson-Stevens Act's 30-day judicial review deadline after the rule's August 2006 publication in the Federal Register. The court reasoned that the Act provides the exclusive means for reviewing such regulations, the filing occurred well after the deadline, and later agency notices about approved systems and grants did not reopen the limitations period.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a products liability claim by Lillian Chase against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, alleging that the company failed to adequately warn about the risks of the antifungal drug Lamisil, which she took and which allegedly caused dysgeusia, nausea, and weight loss. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Novartis. Under Florida law, which applies the learned intermediary doctrine, the plaintiff could not establish that the failure to warn proximately caused her injuries because her prescribing physician did not testify that a different warning would have altered his decision to prescribe the drug or that Lamisil was more likely than not the cause of her symptoms.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involves plaintiff Betty Ann Bird seeking to recover pension benefits under her late husband John Bird's employee retirement plan sponsored by Eastman Kodak Company after his death in 2002. Although married to John from 1997, the court determined that she was not entitled to benefits because John had elected a contingent annuitant option with his first wife, who predeceased him, and any subsequent attempts to designate a new beneficiary failed to comply with the plan's requirements, including proof of good health and due to questions about John's mental capacity. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that under the terms of the ERISA-governed plan, no benefits were payable to the plaintiff.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Cobb v. Syniverse Technologies, Inc., plaintiff James Cobb, a white male born in 1956, sued his former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) alleging retaliation for his internal complaints and EEOC charge about age discrimination by his supervisor, culminating in his termination in February 2003. The defendant moved for summary judgment, conceding protected activity and adverse action but arguing lack of causation due to timing and asserting a legitimate reduction-in-force reason for the termination. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on the causal link because the plaintiff continued to pursue his complaints after the August 2002 internal filing and only thirteen days separated the EEOC charge from termination, and determining that the plaintiff's evidence of pretext was sufficient to survive summary judgment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, plaintiffs Colette Penberthy and her parents sued AT&T Wireless under the Federal Communications Act for releasing her call records and new unlisted phone number to a convicted felon who had stalked and harmed her, alleging violations of the duty to protect customer proprietary network information. The defendant moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in the Welcome Guide terms and conditions, which customers accept by using the service or paying bills. The court granted the motion, holding that the broad clause covers all disputes including statutory claims arising from the service agreement and that remedial limitations do not invalidate it under Eleventh Circuit precedent such as Anders v. Hometown Mortgage Services. The opinion notes the severability clause and that the arbitrator may award relief comparable to a court except as limited by the agreement.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant insurance company in state court for breaching a medical insurance contract by denying coverage. The defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to compel binding arbitration under the contract's arbitration clause. The court granted the motion, staying the litigation, because the broad arbitration agreement covered disputes over coverage, and the defendant had not waived its arbitration rights by promptly seeking arbitration without prejudicing the plaintiff.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure