Many entrepreneurs create business entities to operate their businesses, to facilitate commercial ventures, and to shield themselves from personal liability. The business maintains a separate and distinct identity from that of its owners or related entities. However, the mere shell of a corporate structure is not always enough to avoid […]
This blog post is part II in a series of blogs posts discussing the recovery of attorneys’ fees. Part I explored some considerations in the recovery of attorneys’ fees when the recovery is by virtue of a contractual provision. This second post in the series discusses those scenarios where a […]
The recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “FRCP”) became effective on December 1, 2015, and they govern all cases pending and commenced on and after that date. The changes impact several rules of the FRCP, including those governing early case management, the scope of discovery, and preservation of electronically stored information (“ESI”). These amendments will undoubtedly have an effect on civil litigation practice. Key changes were made to the overall scope of discovery in an effort to address the increasing costs and considerable expense of resources involved in the discovery process. This article focuses on the changes to the rules of discovery and how those changes may affect civil litigation practice.
One of the most common misconceptions of non-lawyers regarding the practice of law is that a civil case ends upon conclusion of a trial and that, if a party is victorious at trial, he automatically obtains or is provided with the award he was granted in court. For instance, if one party sues another for $1 million and prevails at trial, the thinking goes, then, upon conclusion of the trial, the other party just hands over the million dollars. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
In Florida, recovery of attorneys’ fees in eminent domain and inverse condemnation proceedings is governed by Sections 73.091 and 73.092 of the Florida Statutes. Section 73.092 provides a mechanism for determining an award of attorney fees, based on the “benefits achieved for the client.” But, what if the state agency/condemning authority excessively litigated the case, such that the formulaic computation under that statute was unfair to the property owner? A recent Florida Supreme Court case addressed this issue. Joseph B. Doerr Trust v. Central Florida Expressway Authority.
When the Florida Supreme Court wrote the Tiara Condominium opinion the legal community was unsure what the opinion meant. Tiara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc,., 110 So.3d 399 (Fla. 2013). The opinion clearly states that the economic loss doctrine is applicable only in the context of premises liability cases. However, did Tiara Condominium also eliminate the contractual privity economic loss rule, which was sometimes referred to as the independent tort doctrine? There still is not absolute clarity on this topic but the reasoned decision is that the independent tort doctrine preceded the economic loss rule and is not abolished by Tiara Condominium.
For both client and attorney, there is nothing better than a sweet victory in litigation. However, this victory may be bittersweet if there is no recovery of attorneys’ fees. This blog post is one out of a series of blog posts that will discuss the recovery of attorneys’ fees and issues related to recovery. Specifically, this blog post will discuss contractual entitlement to attorneys’ fees.
Does a party in a civil dispute have the right to raise the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination? Yes. De Lisi v. Bankers Ins. Co., 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Does the privilege extend to production of documents or just testimony? The privilege only extends to the production of documents unless the production itself is testimonial in nature. Briggs v. Salcines, 392 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (“It then held that while the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination affords no protection to the contents of previously prepared documents, it does protect a person from producing documents under subpoena where the compelled production would amount to a forced testimonial communication which would be incriminating.”); see also, Fisher v. United States, 96 S. Ct. 1569 (1976). Whether the act of production is testimonial or not can be a complicated analysis. Essentially, if the government were to already know of the existence of documents and the location of such documents then production is not testimonial because the act of producing will not authenticate such documents or otherwise verify the existence of incriminating information.
A recent decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeals marks one of the first Florida appellate opinions holding that non-consumers may maintain a cause of action under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”). Given the broad—and almost limitless—scope of “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or business” prohibited by the act, some could foresee this decision as a precursor to FDUPTA claims being asserted by nearly every commercial litigant. Fortunately, the 4th DCA clarified the parameters on FDUPTA claims: while a claimant need not be a consumer to bring a FDUPTA claim, the claimant must still prove an injury or detriment to consumers to establish liability.
Whether you are a potential plaintiff or a potential defendant, in a business dispute, determining whether punitive damages can be successfully added to the claim is an important part of the legal analysis and should be considered as early in the process as possible. If you are a potential plaintiff, it is important to analyze whether a claim for punitive damages can be added. Successfully adding a claim for punitive damages will likely increase the potential value of the claim. If you are a potential defendant, it is important to understand whether a plaintiff can successfully move to add a claim for punitive damages based upon the causes of action pled.