The Law Lady. For more info about us, click here. To be added to our email circulation with MUCH, MUCH more law, click here and specify whether you wish to be added to our CRIMINAL, CIVIL, HEALTH & INSURANCE, 11th CIRCUIT, or all FEDERAL Recent Decisions of Interest.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Pregnancy discrimination, alimony, injunctions, and rosemary-sage-infused pot roast
Banks -- Contracts -- Custody
agreement -- Torts -- Under facts as alleged, custodian bank breached no duty,
contractual or otherwise, by accepting on behalf of its customer securities
that later turned out to be fraudulent and listing those securities on monthly
account statements issued to the customer -- Allegations, accepted as true,
failed to state claims for breach of contract based on custodian bank allowing
customer's funds to be disbursed as payment for fake notes, allowing cash to be
diverted from customer's account without receiving an asset in exchange, or
without timely receiving an asset in exchange, issuing monthly statements to
customer listing fraudulent securities with false or inflated market values,
and charging excessive fees based on market values that later turned out to be
inflated -- Court of Appeals would address the merits of tort claims against
custodian bank because custody agreement specifically left open possibility
that bank could be liable for losses caused by its negligence, and it appears
alleged conduct relating to performance of custody agreement amounts to an
independent tort under Florida law -- Negligence -- Duty of care -- Customer
failed to state valid negligence claims where customer failed to establish that
custodian bank, which had no discretionary role in investing customer's assets,
owed him an independent duty to monitor the investments of his account, verify
their market value, or ensure they were in valid form -- Aiding and abetting --
District court correctly concluded that customer's aiding and abetting claims
against custodian bank fail -- Allegations that custodian bank accepted
worthless securities, some of which had facial defects, were insufficient to
establish, or allow one to fairly infer, bank's knowledge of underlying fraud
or breach of fiduciary duty by investment advisor, as required by Florida law
-- Alleging that a bank disregarded “red flags” such as “atypical activities”
on a customer's account is insufficient to establish knowledge -- Breach of
fiduciary duty -- Although customer may have unilaterally relied on custodian
bank for protection from misconduct of investment advisors, the custody
agreement and facts alleged in complaint establish an arm's length bargain
imposing limited obligation on parties, not a relationship of “trust and
confidence” or “special circumstances” as required to make out a fiduciary duty
claim -- Negligent misrepresentation -- Customer failed to plead facts
sufficient to establish that custodian bank intended to induce him to rely on
its alleged representations as to validity of his securities as required to
state a claim for negligent misrepresentation under Florida law
DOUGLAS LAMM, Individually and on
behalf of Douglas Lamm IRA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE STREET BANK AND
TRUST, Defendant - Appellee. 11th Circuit.
Civil procedure -- Error to
dismiss complaint because of failure to perfect service on one defendant --
Whether the unserved defendant was an indispensable party to lawsuit was not
addressed below or on appeal and is not self-evident -- Error to dismiss
complaint for failure to timely file joint status report without appropriate
evidentiary hearing and appropriate findings where counsel for both parties
denied receiving order requiring joint status report -- Moreover, order does
not say that case was dismissed without prejudice and could be refiled,
although that appeared to have been court's intent, and there was no
explanation of status of counterclaim, which appeared also to have been
dismissed -- Remand for further proceedings
RICHARD W. TAYLOR, P.A.,
Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER N. BAVARO, et al., Appellees. 5th District.
Civil rights -- Florida Civil
Rights Act prohibits pregnancy discrimination in employment
PEGUY DELVA, Petitioner, v. THE
CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., Respondent. Supreme Court of Florida.
Dissolution of marriage --
Alimony -- Long-term marriage -- Error to deny wife's request for permanent
alimony following dissolution of 18-year marriage without making findings
regarding factors enumerated in statute -- Inconsistent provisions of final
judgment requiring former wife both to bear sole responsibility for certain
utilities and service contracts associated with marital residence and to split
all utilities and service contracts with former husband to be clarified on
remand
LISA WRIGHT,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. HENDON O. WRIGHT, III, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
5th District.
Dissolution of marriage --
Attorney's fees -- Justiciable issues -- Error to grant former wife's motion
for section 57.105 attorney's fees on basis that there was no justiciable issue
of either law or fact in former husband's request to set aside stipulated oral
settlement which resolved parties' cross-petitions to modify child custody and
visitation provisions contained in final judgment of dissolution -- Best
interests of child take predominance over any agreement between parents and must
be independently determined by trial court, and it cannot be concluded that
former husband's attempt to set aside custody agreement prior to issuance of
final judgment, on the basis that the trial court had independent obligation to
determine children's best interests and repudiate the couples' “preliminary”
agreement to the extent it was inconsistent with this standard, warranted award
of attorney's fees
ROBERT MICHAEL PUGLISI,
Appellant, v. TERI ANNE PUGLISI, Appellee. 5th District.
Injunctions -- Temporary
restraining order -- Inexcusable delay -- Motion for TRO to prevent the sale of
counterfeit merchandise outside concert venue is denied where plaintiff's
decision to wait until seven days prior to concert to seek injunctive relief
constituted inexcusable delay resulting in a manufactured emergency violative
of local rules and Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure -- TRO is also deniable on
basis that plaintiff neglected to estimate the number of “bootleggers”
expected, value of seized merchandise, or a reasonable amount of security --
TRO is unreasonably broad where it names unknown and unnamed “John Doe”
defendants, seeks to extend injunction to a ten mile radius around concert
venues, and unacceptably permits federal, state, and local law enforcement to
assign service and seizure of the unauthorized merchandise to “anyone acting
under their supervision”
BRAVADO INTERNATIONAL GROUP
MERCHANDISING SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. MIKE SMITH, JOHN DOES 1-100, JANE
DOES 1-100, XYZ COMPANY, Defendants. U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division.
The Law Lady. For more info about us, click here. To be added to our email circulation with MUCH, MUCH more law, click here and specify whether you wish to be added to our CRIMINAL, CIVIL, HEALTH & INSURANCE, 11th CIRCUIT, or all FEDERAL Recent Decisions of Interest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.