Lacey A. Collier

In this negligence action, plaintiff Ralph Williams sued defendant Marinemax after his fishing boat was stolen overnight from the defendant's fenced and locked boatyard storage area in 2007. The case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds. The court first granted the defendant's motion to strike an untimely expert affidavit submitted with the summary judgment opposition. On the merits, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that no duty of care was owed because the theft was not reasonably foreseeable given the security measures in place and the absence of any prior similar incidents at the location. The court therefore entered judgment for the defendant.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Kilpatrick v. United States, the plaintiff claimed she was stopped by local police at the request of ATF agent Roegner and subjected to questioning and a search of her person and vehicle without consent, after officers observed her van displaying messages critical of the ATF in connection with the Waco siege. The defendants moved for summary judgment on her Bivens claims against the federal agents for alleged constitutional violations and her state-law claims against the United States under the FTCA. The court set forth the summary judgment standard requiring no genuine issue of material fact when viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, identified the two essential elements of a Bivens action, and noted that constitutional tort claims are not cognizable under the FTCA.

free speechcivil rightsfederal power

The case involved Henry Company Homes, Inc. suing Escambia County Engineer Christopher A. Curb under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of due process and equal protection rights stemming from the denial of building permits for residential subdivisions. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because he acted within his authority and did not violate any statute or regulation that would create a civil rights cause of action, and there was no evidence of a substantive due process violation or arbitrary conduct.

civil rightsproperty

The case involved Action Outdoor Advertising's applications for permits to construct two billboards in the small Town of Cinco Bayou, Florida, which were denied under the town's longstanding ordinance prohibiting off-premises signs, including billboards. Action Outdoor sued the town, raising constitutional challenges to the sign regulations. After the town enacted a new ordinance that retained the core prohibition on off-premises signs, the court determined that the claims against the prior ordinance were moot because the town's intent to ban billboards would persist even if other provisions were invalidated, and the new rules addressed any alleged constitutional defects. The court granted the town's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's, and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on grounds of mootness and severability.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

In Rogers v. Cisco Systems, Inc., plaintiffs alleged that Cisco and its executives made false and misleading statements about the company's financial performance and sales from 1999 to 2001 to induce stockholders to retain their shares, which led to significant losses when the stock value collapsed. The suit, originally filed in Florida state court and removed to federal court, asserted claims including violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). Cisco moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, concluding that FDUTPA does not apply to securities transactions as it would overlap with existing securities regulations and that similar state unfair trade practices acts have been held inapplicable to such claims by other courts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Silhan v. Allstate Insurance, homeowners sued their insurer Allstate for negligently or intentionally destroying the fire scene and most evidence after a house fire, claiming this impaired their ability to pursue a products liability suit against the dishwasher manufacturer and seller in a prior subrogation action. The court granted Allstate's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The core reasoning was that Florida law imposes no common-law duty on an insurer to preserve evidence absent an explicit agreement or formal notice of the insured's intent to file suit, and the complaint alleged neither; the case was distinguished from precedents involving specific promises to retain evidence or statutory duties.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved pro se plaintiffs Don and Bonnie Pace suing IRS Criminal Investigation Division employee Leonard Platt, other IRS officials, the IRS, and the United States after an administrative code 914 was placed on their 1992, 1994, and 1995 tax accounts, which they alleged froze account activity and delayed refunds without notice. Plaintiffs asserted claims for declaratory relief and constitutional torts under the Fifth Amendment, plus FTCA tort claims including conversion, negligent supervision, respondeat superior, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed the entire complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that sovereign immunity barred suits against the IRS and that FTCA claims were excluded because they arose from tax assessment or collection activities; it further found plaintiffs failed to exhaust required administrative remedies before filing suit.

taxesfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

In Henry v. City of Tallahassee, a Black police officer who had previously prevailed in a state-court discrimination and retaliation suit against the city brought new claims after being suspended and terminated following an off-duty incident at a club. The officer had arrested the event promoter for nonpayment, leading to internal affairs and criminal investigations that the city cited as grounds for discharge based on alleged abuse of authority, untruthfulness, and a felony false-imprisonment charge. The district court granted the city's motion for summary judgment, finding no similarly situated comparators, insufficient evidence of pretext or causation, and res judicata barring re-litigation of certain earlier matters. The court also rejected the plaintiff's request for judicial notice and struck certain affidavits.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a dispute between IBP, a major beef producer, and Hady Enterprises, an exporter, over Hady's purchase of IBP beef livers labeled for the Russian market and subsequent repackaging with Arabic Halal labels to sell them in Egypt in violation of Egyptian import rules. IBP claimed that Hady's alterations, including tampering with packaging and adding labels that sometimes contaminated the product, constituted trademark infringement and false designation of origin under federal law. The court found in favor of IBP after a bench trial, concluding that the repackaged livers were materially different from the originals in ways relevant to consumers and regulators, such as compliance with Halal standards and product integrity, and that Hady had misused IBP's distinctive logo without authorization. The court awarded IBP compensatory damages and punitive damages based on Hady's gross negligence but denied certain other requested relief due to insufficient evidence.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Samples v. Conoco, Inc., plaintiffs filed a class action in Florida state court alleging trespass, private nuisance, and strict liability against Conoco, Agrico, and Escambia Treating for property damage from environmental contamination at two Superfund sites in Pensacola. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the claims implicated federal jurisdiction under CERCLA because they related to ongoing EPA cleanup actions governed by consent decrees. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction since the state-law tort claims did not arise under federal law, did not challenge the EPA's remedial actions under CERCLA § 113(h), and were not completely preempted by the federal statute.

environmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute over allegedly defective PVC liners sold by Engineered Textile Products, Inc. (ETP) to Coastal & Native Plant Specialties, Inc. for use in coastal dune restoration; ETP sought indemnification from its supplier, Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChem), after Coastal sued ETP. OxyChem moved for summary judgment, arguing that its invoice terms and conditions, including warranty disclaimers, barred ETP's claims. The court denied the motion, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to ETP and finding unresolved factual issues, including questions of privity of contract and the applicability of OxyChem's terms. The opinion adopts prior factual findings from an earlier order and concludes that summary judgment is inappropriate at this stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a challenge by George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, and the Republican Party of Florida against Florida county canvassing boards that rejected overseas absentee state ballots and federal write-in ballots in the 2000 presidential election. The rejections were based on state rules concerning postmarks (including lack of APO/FPO or foreign postmarks), mismatched signatures, or absence of a prior state ballot application, which the plaintiffs claimed conflicted with and were preempted by the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. The court issued a declaratory judgment under federal law, holding that the federal Act preempts inconsistent state criteria for validating such ballots from overseas and military voters, and that ballots meeting federal standards must be counted.

electionsfederal powercivil rights

In Harris v. Bush, the plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued Governor Jeb Bush, hospital administrators, a sheriff, and related entities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations stemming from his 1998 involuntary examination and brief confinement under Florida's Baker Act; he also sought a declaratory judgment that a provision of the Act was unconstitutional on its face and as applied. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court reasoned that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim, particularly that private defendants acted under color of state law, that the governor or other officials were personally involved or liable, and that any official-capacity claims against the state were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, while construing the pro se pleadings liberally but still finding them deficient.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

The case involved the School Board of Escambia County seeking recovery under a performance bond issued by TIG Premier Insurance Company for a 1994 demolition contract with Southco on a school site, after buried debris from that project was later discovered during construction of a new school, requiring additional removal work. The district court granted TIG's motion for summary judgment, holding that the School Board forfeited its rights under the bond. The core reasoning was that the bond's unambiguous terms required the School Board, upon discovering a default, to notify TIG and give it an opportunity to remedy the default before taking other action, but the School Board provided notice only years later after it had already cured the issue itself, amounting to a material breach that rendered the bond null and void under Florida contract law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved franchisee Joseph Davis, who purchased several McDonald's restaurants in Pensacola, Florida, and later sued McDonald's Corporation alleging breach of contract, fraud, and related claims based on alleged misrepresentations about future restaurant expansion that reduced his sales. McDonald's moved for summary judgment, arguing that the franchise agreements and UFOC expressly disclaimed any exclusive territory or protection from new competing locations. The court granted partial summary judgment to McDonald's, finding no genuine issues of material fact on the claims because the contracts clearly stated there were no exclusive rights, Davis's reliance on oral statements or projections was unreasonable in light of the disclaimers, and McDonald's had no duty to disclose further expansion plans. The decision rested on the plain language of the agreements and the absence of any contractual obligation to limit new store development.

business & regulatory

This case involves two former female delivery drivers at an auto parts store who sued their employer and its owner for hostile work environment sexual harassment and discriminatory hiring and promotion practices under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs alleged they were subjected to sexual comments, requests for personal errands, and other harassing conduct by supervisors, coworkers, and customers, and that men were preferentially hired and promoted; they resigned after specific incidents involving the owner. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment along with a motion to strike certain affidavits, granting the summary judgment motion in part and denying it in part on both procedural and substantive grounds. On the harassment claim, the court found sufficient evidence that the conduct was based on sex rather than the hectic work environment, rejecting the defense that all employees faced the same rough conditions, while also evaluating direct evidence of discriminatory intent regarding promotions.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves employment claims by plaintiff Marie Casey against Wal-Mart and two supervisors, alleging sexual harassment through inappropriate comments and physical touching by Jerry Brooks and Karl Katzenberger during her work at a Crestview, Florida store starting in 1990. After reports in 1994, Wal-Mart investigated, terminated Brooks, and issued coaching to Katzenberger, with later events including Brooks' rehire at another store and Casey's position elimination. The court ruled on Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment, granting it in part to dismiss claims lacking evidence of adverse actions, timely reporting failures, or insufficient remedial measures, and denying it in part to allow remaining claims to proceed. The core reasoning examined whether the employer's investigations and responses met legal standards under Title VII for hostile work environment and related state tort claims like battery, finding some factual disputes unresolved while others were immaterial or unsupported.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

The case concerned electric utility companies challenging the Pole Attachment Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires utilities to grant cable and telecommunications providers nondiscriminatory access to their poles, ducts, and conduits. The utilities sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the mandatory access provision effected a physical taking of their property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The court denied the utilities' motion for summary judgment and granted the motions of the United States, the FCC, and intervenors. It held that the Act's rate formula, under which the FCC sets just and reasonable rates, satisfies the constitutional requirement for compensation.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

In Northfield Insurance v. Barlow, the insurer sued under maritime and diversity jurisdiction seeking to void a marine insurance policy for the defendants' vessel after discovering misrepresentations and concealment in the application materials regarding the boat's history and prior claims; the vessel had sustained hurricane damage shortly after the policy was issued, leading to partial payments by the insurer before further investigation halted additional disbursements. The defendants opposed summary judgment, raising issues including compliance with the Florida Insurance Code and the existence of factual disputes. The court granted the plaintiff's motion, holding that the policy and binder were void ab initio because the misrepresentations were material and no genuine issues of material fact remained after discovery, entitling Northfield to restitution of payments made.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Davis v. United States, the plaintiff sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act after falling and fracturing her elbow on uneven pavement in a historic area of the Gulf Islands National Seashore. The government moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the National Park Service's decisions on roadway maintenance and warning signs fell under the discretionary function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that these decisions involved elements of judgment or choice not dictated by specific statutes or regulations and were grounded in policy considerations such as historic preservation, public safety, and budgetary constraints.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power