terry's takes

Filtered by court: 4th dca

April 9, 2024

4th dca, disqualification or recusal of judge, writ of prohibition

H.S. v. Department of Children and Families

The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a Christian father’s petition for a writ of prohibition and required that a trial judge be disqualified largely because the judge used the transgender child’s preferred pronouns, which the father argued made him feel like he could not receive a fair hearing from the judge. The case was about DCF’s petition to reevaluated the child’s custody status in light of alleged psychological distress the father was causing to his child by refusing to acknowledge the child’s transgenderism.

March 14, 2024

4th dca, punitive damages

Selz v. McKagen

The Fourth DCA recently reversed a trial court's decision allowing a plaintiff to pursue punitive damages against a tenant accused of filing fraudulent liens to hinder a property sale. While the tenant’s actions suggested fraudulent intent, the court found that a mere 'should have known' standard was insufficient to warrant punitive damages, as it requires actual knowledge of wrongdoing. Judge Warner concurred, though he noted his disagreement with prior Fourth DCA rulings on the punitive damages statute. The Fourth DCA has now certified an express conflict with decisions from the Second and Fifth DCAs, signaling a potential issue for the Florida Supreme Court to resolve.

March 14, 2024

4th dca, arbitration, medical malpractice

Palacios v. Lawson

Where an arbitration agreement contracted around Florida’s medical malpractice act rather than incorporating parts of the arbitration statutes under Chapter 766, it was not void under public policy. It was enforceable, and the trial court erred in holding otherwise.

June 21, 2023

4th dca, punitive damages

Napleton’s North Palm Auto Park, Inc. v. Agosto

agosto and an unnamed fellow employee both worked at napleton’s north palm auto park, a car dealership. the unnamed employee (“employee”) had a few alcoholic drinks at lunch. later that evening, he drove his car into agosto’s parked car. the employee wa...

June 14, 2023

4th dca, intervening cause, proximate cause, summary judgement standard

Serrano v. Dickinson

a good outcome for a plaintiff! this case arises out of two accidents that occurred within a short time on a rainy afternoon on the florida turnpike. defendant dickinson lost control of her jeep, which collided with the median barrier and came to rest i...

June 14, 2023

4th dca, intervening cause, proximate cause, summary judgement standard

DeSanto v. Grahn

In DeSanto v. Grahn, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s decision allowing former clients of disbarred attorney Richard John DeSanto to pursue punitive damages. The Fourth DCA clarified that under Section 768.72(1), Fla. Stat., and Rule 1.190(f), punitive damages claims require a “reasonable showing by evidence” either in the record or proffered to substantiate the claim. Here, DeSanto’s former clients argued that anticipated evidence, rather than existing evidence, sufficed for their punitive damages claim. The DCA, however, sided with DeSanto, emphasizing that mere pleadings or unverified records from unrelated disbarment proceedings do not meet the evidentiary standard required to seek punitive damages. The appellate court highlighted the necessity of actual evidence to prevent baseless punitive damages claims. Reversed and remanded

June 7, 2023

4th dca, venue

Water’s Edge Dermatology, LCC v. Christopherson

ms. christopherson is a plaintiff who sued her dermatologist and the provider llc. a year after treating with doctor montie, christopherson (“plaintiff”) discovered that she had skin cancer. she sued in broward county for medical negligence/malpractice ...

June 7, 2023

4th dca, motion to dismiss, sovereign immunity florida, writ of prohibition

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Manzini

manzini is the plaintiff in a negligence action against the seminole tribe of florida. the tribe is federally recognized, so it is entitled to sovereign immunity over all claims that are not abrogated by congress or waived by the tribe itself.

May 31, 2023

4th dca, summary judgement standard

Fuentes v. Luxury Outdoor Design, Inc.

In B. Little & Company, Inc. v. Choi Wai Printing (Hong Kong) Limited, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment ruling. The trial court mistakenly believed it was obligated to rule in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff did not respond to the summary judgment motion. Under Rule 1.510, the court has discretion to take other actions besides granting the motion. The appellate court emphasized that summary judgment is only warranted if undisputed facts show entitlement, leading to a reversal and remand for reconsideration.

May 31, 2023

4th dca, default judgment

Superior Brokerage Services, Inc. v. Maduel

a default judgment was entered against superior brokerage services, inc., and the company moved for relief based on the argument that service of process was insufficient. the trial court found that the company had waived its right to complain about insu...

May 24, 2023

4th dca, default judgment, rule 1 540 motion

Wolf v. Peter M. Habashy, P.A.

dr. habashy’s corporation sued mr. and mrs. wolf, a married couple, for paying for dental services with a worthless check. on the same day that a default was entered against them, their attorney filed a notice of appearance and a motion for extension of...

May 24, 2023

4th dca, motion to dismiss, personal jurisdiction

Lornamead, Inc. v. Fleemin

In this case, the Fleemins filed a product liability suit against Lornamead, claiming Joanne Fleemin developed mesothelioma from using Yardley talcum powder. The trial court initially denied Lornamead’s motion to dismiss, believing it sold the product in Florida. On appeal, the DCA found that Lornamead’s limited distribution to Walgreens in the U.S.—and lack of Florida-specific business operations—did not establish sufficient contact with Florida to meet personal jurisdiction requirements. The DCA ruled that mere placement of a product in the general market, without targeted efforts toward the state, does not fulfill jurisdictional standards. Lornamead was dismissed from the case.

Our Promise

Aggressive Litigation. Honest Representation. Dedicated Communication. Respect and Compassion.