Patricia A. Seitz

The case involved a homeowner who sued mortgage lenders and related entities after defaulting on a 2007 loan and facing foreclosure, alleging claims including declaratory judgment, fraudulent misrepresentation, quiet title, cancellation of mortgage, FDUTPA violations, and federal violations under TILA and RESPA based on alleged misrepresentations about loan terms and property condition. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts. The core reasoning was that no genuine issues of material fact existed, the plaintiff failed to identify any misrepresentations made by the defendants themselves, and the TILA and RESPA claims were time-barred with no facts supporting equitable tolling.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff suing a debt collection company under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for allegedly leaving one voicemail message without disclosing that the caller was a debt collector. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for final default judgment, vacated the clerk's prior entry of default, and directed the plaintiff to amend the complaint. The court reasoned that the complaint contained only legal conclusions parroting the statute rather than well-pleaded facts, failed to specify the message's content to show a lack of meaningful disclosure, and alleged only a single communication so that no violation of the subsequent-communications disclosure rule could be shown. The court further concluded that no set of facts could support relief under the FDCPA.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a condominium association that sued its insurer after the insurer denied a claim for property damage from Hurricane Wilma in 2005, alleging the damages did not exceed the policy deductible. The plaintiff sought declaratory relief on issues including the start date of the statute of limitations for breach of contract and damages for breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss both counts. It dismissed the declaratory relief claims because there was no actual controversy, as the insurer had not raised a statute of limitations defense. The good faith claim was dismissed because Florida law does not recognize such a claim in the first-party insurance context, though with leave to refile if a pending state supreme court decision altered that rule.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, seaman Laurent Fernandes sued Holland American Line for back injuries sustained while working aboard a cruise ship, asserting claims under the Jones Act for negligence as well as unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure. Holland moved to compel arbitration in India under British Virgin Islands law, as provided in the parties' employment agreement. The court granted the motion, holding that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards requires enforcement of the arbitration clause because its prerequisites were met and no affirmative defense, including the public-policy exception, applied. The court reasoned that Supreme Court precedent favors international arbitration agreements, that Thomas v. Carnival did not bar arbitration here because it addressed only a specific statutory remedy unavailable under foreign law, and that Fernandes had not shown the chosen law would prevent pursuit of his claims.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves declaratory judgment actions by insurer Mid-Continent Casualty Company against subcontractors Active Drywall South, Design Drywall, and JDM Builders (plus additional insured Lennar Homes) to determine coverage under commercial general liability policies for underlying state-court claims arising from allegedly defective Chinese drywall installation. Lennar asserted a ninth affirmative defense that MCC breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which excused any non-performance by the defendants. The court granted MCC's motions to strike the defense without prejudice, allowing amendment by a set deadline if facts and law support it. The defense was legally insufficient because it consisted only of conclusory statements without identifying specific contract provisions, duties excused, or any logical relationship to the coverage determination sought, failing to meet Rule 8(a) and Twombly pleading standards. The court also noted uncertainty over whether such a defense could properly apply in an insurance coverage action or would instead constitute a premature bad-faith claim under Florida law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a federal prisoner, Jose Santiago-Lebron, who petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Bureau of Prisons' cancellation of a Spanish-language Residential Drug and Alcohol Program (RDAP) at his facility, claiming violations of the Ex Post Facto Clause, Equal Protection, Due Process, the Administrative Procedure Act, and internal BOP policies. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the petition on the merits. The court reasoned that the new policy requiring English proficiency for RDAP participation applied uniformly across the BOP system without retroactive application or discrimination, that the petitioner had no protected liberty interest in the program or early release, and that the cancellation complied with applicable regulations and procedures.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Silver v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that the defendant fraudulently induced her to enter into an adjustable-rate mortgage on less favorable terms than negotiated and later misled her about a promised loan refinance or modification in 2008, resulting in default and loss of refinancing opportunities. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary final judgment on all claims. The ruling rested on the absence of evidence from which a reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff, the economic loss rule barring tort claims intertwined with the contract, and failures to satisfy the elements of fraud or breach of contract.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a cruise ship passenger, Sandra Rinker, who developed meningitis, bacteremia, and osteomyelitis after seeking treatment from the ship's doctor and nurses aboard a Carnival vessel in 2008, leading to alleged worsened conditions including hearing loss; she sued Carnival and the medical staff on multiple counts including negligence, breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary, and conspiracy. The court granted Carnival's motion to dismiss Counts I, VIII, and XV with prejudice, ruling that California licensing laws did not apply because general maritime law controlled and preempted conflicting state rules. Dismissal of the contract claim stemmed from failure to allege any breach by Carnival, the conspiracy claim from lack of an alleged agreement to commit an unlawful act, and portions of the negligence claim from missing causation, nonexistent duties, and conclusory allegations unsupported by facts under Rule 12(b)(6) standards.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a former Seaport Enforcement Specialist suing Miami-Dade County for national origin discrimination under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act after his termination. The plaintiff had checked national origin on an EEOC intake questionnaire and referenced related issues in attached letters, but his verified EEOC charge and amended charge only alleged sex discrimination and retaliation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that judicial claims must be within the scope of the EEOC charge and that the questionnaire and letters did not properly expand or substitute for the verified charge. The reasoning emphasized that the plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, failed to include or amend the charge to cover national origin and that the letters did not provide adequate notice of such a claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In La Gorce Palace Condo Assoc., Inc. v. QBE Insurance, a condominium association sued its insurer for failing to pay losses from Hurricane Wilma, seeking specific performance of the insurance policy's appraisal clause and declaratory judgments regarding the contract's validity, coverage entitlements, and the enforceability of coinsurance and hurricane deductible provisions under Florida law. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss Counts I and II, finding that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim for specific performance of the appraisal clause or to demonstrate a present bona fide dispute warranting declaratory relief on most issues. The reasoning centered on Florida legal standards requiring clear facts showing entitlement to remedies, the absence of an adequate legal remedy, and stipulations by the defendant that eliminated disputes over policy validity and coinsurance, with leave granted to re-plead only the deductible issue.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Jessup v. Miami-Dade County, plaintiff Amanda Jessup sued Corporal Katrina Robinson and Miami-Dade County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to her medical needs after she suffered a head injury during a psychotic episode while detained following her arrest on charges stemming from a mistaken theft report; she also asserted a negligence claim against the county for failing to provide access to medical care. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants on all claims. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court found no admissible evidence that Robinson was deliberately indifferent to Jessup's medical needs or that Miami-Dade was deliberately indifferent through inadequate training or by denying access to care. The decision rested on the absence of evidence meeting the legal standards for these constitutional and negligence claims arising from events at the Women's Detention Center in 2004.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedurehealthcare

This case stems from a 2003 boiler explosion on a cruise ship that injured and killed seamen, leading to Jones Act and maritime claims that were compelled to arbitration in 2003 and affirmed on appeal in 2005. Plaintiffs later settled with the defendant cruise line, executing releases that waived all claims and designated the Philippine National Labor Relations Commission as the exclusive forum for disputes. Years afterward, plaintiffs' counsel filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to reopen the case, vacate the arbitration order, and add new claims, which the defendant opposed with a Rule 11 sanctions motion. The court granted sanctions against counsel for failing to disclose the settlements and releases or cite controlling contrary authority, finding the motion frivolous, but imposed sanctions only on counsel and not the plaintiffs themselves.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a contract dispute between Managed Care Solutions, Inc. (MCS), a company providing collection services for unpaid healthcare receivables, and Essent Healthcare, Inc., which operated five hospitals. MCS alleged that Essent breached a Professional Services Agreement by failing to grant MCS exclusive rights to handle third-party payor collections and appeals, and it sought both damages for breach of contract and an equitable accounting to determine the amount owed. Essent moved to dismiss the equitable accounting claim. The court granted the motion, holding that MCS had an adequate remedy at law because the accounts were not so complex that a jury could not competently calculate damages from the breach.

business & regulatoryprocedurehealthcare

The case involved a dispute over whether Saregama India Ltd. owned the copyright to an Indian sound recording called Bagor Mein Bahar Hai that was sampled in the song "Put You on the Game" on Jayceon Taylor's album. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, ruling that the 1967 agreement provided at most a limited license and there was no evidence the recording was covered by it or that Saregama obtained rights otherwise. Additionally, the court found that the two works were not substantially similar beyond a one-second snippet, so no copyright infringement occurred.

propertyprocedure

In this case, an Iraqi national who had been a permanent resident for nine years filed a petition in federal district court under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) after USCIS failed to decide his naturalization application within 120 days of his examination. USCIS later denied the application, prompting defendants to move to dismiss the petition as moot on the ground that the agency and court shared concurrent jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute confers exclusive jurisdiction on the district court once a § 1447(b) petition is filed, rendering the agency's subsequent denial void. It therefore remanded the matter to USCIS with directions to provide the plaintiff his file, hold a hearing, and issue a final decision by set deadlines, while retaining authority to reopen the case if needed.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which Coconut Key Homeowners Association sued Lexington Insurance Company for breach of a property insurance policy after Hurricane Wilma, alleging failure to pay for covered wind and rain damage to condominium units. Lexington moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that an inspection provision in the policy constituted a condition precedent that barred recovery for any units it had not been permitted to inspect. The court denied the motion, holding that Lexington had not established as a matter of law that Coconut Key materially breached the provision or that Lexington suffered substantial prejudice from limited access to certain units, given the plaintiff's multiple offers to facilitate inspections over several years and evidence of external factors like foreclosures affecting access. The court also ruled on various evidentiary motions, granting the defendant's request to amend its answer but denying or mooting the plaintiff's motions in limine and to strike.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a lawsuit by the estate of a passenger who suffered a stroke aboard a Carnival cruise ship docked in Panama and subsequently died by suicide after delayed treatment at local hospitals. The plaintiff alleged that Carnival breached its duties by failing to arrange timely transport in a properly equipped ambulance to suitable medical facilities and by not having adequate policies for such transfers. The court granted Carnival's motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that the cruise line had no duty to provide or arrange for medical transportation services or related procedures in foreign ports. The core reasoning relied on admiralty law precedents establishing that ship owners owe passengers reasonable care but are not required to furnish or supervise medical services, as they are not healthcare providers and lack the necessary expertise.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a claim by plaintiff Louise Exime against her former employer E.W. Ventures, Inc. and its owner Kevin Hagenstad for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) at a dry cleaning business. The defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds that the plaintiff failed to establish enterprise coverage under the FLSA, that the owner was not individually liable, and that the plaintiff was an improper serial filer. The court denied the motion after finding disputed issues of material fact on enterprise coverage, based on evidence that employees handled out-of-state manufactured equipment and that the business's gross sales met the statutory threshold for the relevant period under applicable calculation methods.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case arose from a failed real estate development venture in the Bahamas, where plaintiff Haddad invested over $4 million under a memorandum of understanding with defendants RAV Bahamas and Gerardo Capo but never received his promised equity stake, leading to claims of securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, specific performance, and breach of contract. The court addressed defendants' motion to exclude the report and testimony of plaintiff's damages expert, Barry Mukamal, who calculated the net present value of the project using an August 2008 valuation date and various development scenarios. The court granted the motion, ruling that Mukamal's opinion must be excluded because it relies on an irrelevant time frame unrelated to the alleged breaches or contractual remedies and would not assist the jury. The core reasoning centered on the requirement that expert testimony be relevant and helpful, noting that damages for breach of contract are measured as of the date of breach under Florida law and that the report failed to account for the MOU's specific remedy provisions.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case involved plaintiffs Stockwire Research Group and Adrian James suing defendants Jonathan Lebed and related entities for unauthorized downloading, modification, and online distribution of a copyrighted multimedia documentary called the Stockumentary, including circumvention of technical protection measures and removal of copyright management information under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. After the defendants failed to respond and default was entered, the court held an evidentiary hearing on damages. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for final default judgment, finding the well-pleaded allegations admitted and defendants liable on the copyright and DMCA claims. For damages, the court awarded the maximum statutory amount of $25,000 per violative act based on the three unauthorized uploads, rejecting a per-view calculation as inconsistent with the DMCA and precedent like McClatchey v. Associated Press.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory