Fourth District Quashes Order Compelling Deposition Of Defendant Outside Of County of Residence

In Polselli v. Wicker, Smith, O’Hara & Ford, P.A. (4D13-4180), the Fourth District granted a petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the trial court’s order compelling the deposition of the petitioners. The majority opinion stated that "Respondent noticed the petitioners to appear for deposition in their individual capacity. It is well-settled that a defendant must be deposed in the county of his or her work or residence unless the defendant has sought affirmative relief or extraordinary circumstances exist.” The court stated that “Petitioners are not seeking affirmative relief and respondents have failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist, which would require petitioners’ appearance in Florida for deposition.” Therefore, the order compelling the deposition to occur in Broward County was quashed.

Judge Warner filed a dissenting opinion, dissenting on two different grounds. Her dissent first stated that "The trial court originally entered an order in August 2013, requiring the petitioners to appear for their depositions in Broward County. Rather than seek review of that order, petitioners failed to appear for the scheduled depositions, prompting a motion to compel and the order now before this court. Their failure to seek timely review of the August 2013 order resulted in a waiver of their right to contest their required appearance in Florida.” Presumably in response to this portion of the dissent, and regarding the motion to dismiss, the majority opinion included a footnote stating: “We deny respondent’s motion to dismiss as the previous directive that the petitioners appear “as scheduled” was issued within an order that permitted their attorneys to withdraw.”

Judge Warner also dissented on the merits. The dissent states "Alternatively, I would deny the petition because petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they are not corporate representatives who can be deposed at the corporate place of business. CVS Caremark Corp. v. Latour, 109 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Based on the foregoing, I cannot conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law.”

Fourth District On The Retroactive Application of Section 768.0755 (Conflict Certified), Jury Interviews, & Non-Delegable Duty of Care

 In Pembroke Lakes Mall LTD v. McGruder (4D11-4005), the Fourth District affirmed in part, reversed in part, and certified conflict with the Third District’s decision in Kenz v. Miami-Dade County, 116 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The court “conclude[d] the trial court properly denied the Mall’s motion for directed verdict and the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for mistrial following McGruder’s improper arguments. We also affirm the trial court’s decision to not apply section 768.0755 retroactively, and we certify conflict with the Third District on that issue. We reverse on the issues of the juror interviews and the cross-appeal, and remand for the court to allow Pembroke Lakes and Millard to conduct interviews of the jurors.”

Retroactive Application of Statute

The court first addressed “whether section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010), applies retroactively.” In 2001, in a slip and fall case, the Florida Supreme Court held that “all premises owners owe a duty to their invitees to exercise reasonable care to maintain their premises in a safe condition.” Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315, 320 (Fla. 2001). The Fourth District stated that “in 2002, apparently in response to Owens, the Florida Legislature enacted section 768.0710, Florida Statutes (2002), establishing the ‘burden of proof in claims of negligence involving transitory foreign objects or substances against persons or entities in possession or control of business premises.’” However, in 2010, the legislature again amended the statute in a substantial way. "The legislature repealed section 768.0710 and replaced it with section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010) and therein provided an effective date of July 1, 2010. In revising the law and repealing section 768.0710, the legislature did not state the new statute should apply retroactively. Section 768.0755 is entitled ‘Premises liability for transitory foreign substances in a business establishment’.”

The issue was whether the 2002 version of the law, or the 2010 version enacted after the alleged incident, would apply to this claim. To determine whether a statute can be applied retroactively:

The Florida Supreme Court has set a two-prong test for determining whether a statute applies retroactively: “‘First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.’” Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Devon Neighborhood Ass’n, 67 So. 3d 187, 195 (Fla. 2011) (quoting Menendez v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010)).

“As to the first prong, legislative intent, the legislature gave no indication in section 768.0755 that the statute was to be applied retroactively.” However, “the general rule against retroactive application of statutes does not apply to procedural or remedial changes.” "Thus, the issue is whether section 768.0755 is procedural or substantive. ‘ S]ubstantive law prescribes duties and rights and procedural law concerns the means and methods to apply and enforce those duties and rights.' Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352, 1358 (Fla. 1994) (citation omitted).”

As to this specific change, and contrary to the Third District’s conclusion in Kenz, the court stated that “the shift from 768.0710 to 768.0755 was far more than a simple procedural change to the burden of proof.” The court also “respectfully disagree[d] with the Kenz court’s conclusion that applying section 768.0755 retroactively would not abolish a plaintiff’s cause of action.” Therefore, the statute could not be applied retroactively.and held that “for these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s decision to apply the 2002 statute (section 768.0710) rather than the 2010 law (section 768.0755), and certify conflict with the Third District’s Kenz decision.”

Post-Trial Jury Interviews

The court also addressed the trial court’s denial of a motion to conduct post-trial jury interviews. "Where, as here, the basis of a request for post-trial interviews is the jurors’ alleged nondisclosure of information during voir dire, “the motion should demonstrate entitlement to a new trial under the three-part test” of De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla. 1995).” The court stated that:

Applying these principles to the instant case, we must conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to interview the jurors. “Although generally post-verdict juror interviews are disfavored, where there is adequate proof that a juror may have failed to disclose material information on voir dire, a party is entitled to conduct an interview of the juror.” Hillsboro Mgmt., LLC v. Pagono, 112 So. 3d 620, 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

The court stated that while the disclosure of prior litigation by a juror is always relevant, it is not always material. "Here, the prior litigation was potentially material to this slip and fall litigation. At least one of the jurors, Jorge, was involved in a personal injury protection lawsuit and may have participated in other litigation that was relevant and material to the instant case.” 

After establishing the information was material, the movant was still required to establish that the juror concealed the information and that the concealment was not the fault of the movant. On those issues, the court stated: 

The concealment prong is met when the juror is “squarely asked for” the information and the juror fails to speak the truth…. The concealment prong may be met if the juror fails to respond to questions from either the court or the parties. … The nondisclosure need not be intentional to constitute concealment. Here, the concealment prong was met because the court unambiguously asked the challenged jurors whether they or their families were involved in or had been involved in any litigation apart from divorces, and all four categorically answered that they had not.

Finally, the third prong addresses whether the cause of the failure to elicit the information was due to the fault of the complaining party. If a juror mentions involvement in litigation and the complaining party does not ask follow-up questions, the party cannot then obtain a new trial because of undisclosed information relating to the litigation. … However, if the juror unambiguously denies involvement in prior litigation, counsel need not ask follow-up questions. Here, the jurors categorically answered that they had not been involved in prior litigation, in response to a clear question posed by the court. The parties were entitled to rely on the sacrosanct underpinnings of voir dire. The jurors’ answers and nondisclosures were not due to the fault of Pembroke Lakes or Millard.

Non-Delegable Duty of Care

The final issue addressed in the court’s 16 page opinion relates to “McGruder’s claim that the trial court erred by refusing to hold Pembroke Lakes liable for the negligence attributed to Millard.” The court’s opinion provides more analysis than is included here but, generally, the court held as follows:

Section 768.0710 imposes a non-delegable duty of care on business owners to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition for invitees ….The premises owner cannot avoid liability for the breach of its statutory duty by contracting the maintenance and cleaning function at the [premises] to others. …. When an owner owes a non-delegable duty of care to a plaintiff who obtains a verdict assigning negligence to the owner and a party contracted by the owner, the owner is jointly and severally liable for the negligence attributed to the contracted party. …. Pembroke Lakes raises numerous arguments in opposition to imposing liability against it for the negligence attributed to Millard. We reject each argument

One of the three arguments discussed, and rejected by the court relates to the difference between a non-delegable duty and vicarious liability. Because it is apparently a source of confusion, the court’s clarification is copied below:

Pembroke Lakes’ argument that a finding of agency is required to impose liability against a premises owner for a breach of a non-delegable duty is incorrect. Pembroke Lakes, like many parties and some courts, erroneously conflates the concepts of non-delegable duty and vicarious liability. … Vicarious liability is a form of indirect liability in which a party, who may have not been negligent, can be held liable for the acts of another party. … In contrast, a breach of a non-delegable duty is a form of direct liability, in which a business owner may be liable to the plaintiff for negligently failing to take reasonable efforts to maintain the premises in a safe condition.  

57.105 Safe Harbor Provisions Do Not Apply To Court

A few weeks ago, in Albelo v. Southern Oak Insurance Company (3D11-3102), the Third District entered an order granting rehearing and vacating a prior opinion awarding sanctions based upon section 57.105, Florida Statutes, but at the same time issued a new opinion awarding sanctions on the court's own motion.

The court agreed with new counsel that the sanctions motion had failed to comply with the safe harbor provisions provided by section 57.105. Therefore, the prior opinion granting sanctions on that basis was withdrawn. The court, however, noted that sanctions on the court's own motion do not require compliance with the safe harbor provisions of the statute. The court stated that:

While we agree with Rehearing Counsel that Albelo failed to satisfy the requirements of the safe harbor provision, we respectfully disagree with Rehearing Counsel that the argument made to us was non-frivolous. The twenty-one-day safe harbor provision does not apply to court-initiated sanctions.

The now vacated original opinion can be viewed HERE. 

The Solicitor General's Style Guide

The Solicitor General’s Style Guide has been published for the first time since 1941 and, according to the book, no copies of the 1941 edition are known to still exist. It is available from Amazon.com in both a print and a Kindle edition.

The Style Guide was published in November and, at that time, discussed by the Blog of Legal Times, SCOTUSblog, Legal Writing Pro, etc. If you write briefs, it is a good guide to add to your shelf. 

Third District Grants Prohibition Based Upon Stand Your Ground Law

In Mobley v. Florida (3D13-1566), the Third District Court of Appeal released a split opinion today, granting a petition for writ of prohibition. The majority opinion was written by Judge Wells who was joined by Chief Judge Shepherd. The dissent was written by Judge Salter. The end result is the trial court’s order denying immunity to a man that shot two people is quashed and he will not be tried. The 23 page opinion (including the dissent) is worth reading if the stand your ground law is of interest to you. It also presents a situation where the stand your ground law is actually applied—which seems relevant given the frequency of debate about the law.

11th Circuit Holds It Is A Violation of the FDCPA To Charge Flat Collection Fee When Not In Contract

In Bradley v. Franklin Collection Services Inc., the Eleventh Circuit addressed an issue relating to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and adopted the Eighth Circuit’s view on this particular issue.

In Kojetin v. CU Recovery, Inc., 212 F.3d 1318, 1318 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curium), the Eighth Circuit “held that the debt collector violated the FDCPA when it charged the debtor a collection fee based on a percentage of the principal balance of the debt due rather than the actual cost of collection.” The Eleventh Circuit, in today’s published opinion, now joins the Eighth Circuit. 

In this case, “When Bradley signed Urology’s patient registration form, he only agreed to pay 'all costs of collection.' That is, Bradley agreed to pay the actual costs of collection; his contractual agreement with Urology did not require him to pay a collection agency’s percentage-based fee where that fee did not correlate to the costs of collection.” 

“Before Urology handed over Bradley’s delinquent account to Franklin, it added a 33-and-1/3% 'collection fee.' Franklin failed to direct this Court to any evidence that the 33-and-1/3% ‘collection fee'—which was assessed before Franklin attempted to collect the balance due—bears any correlation to the actual cost of Franklin’s collection effort. As such, the 33-and-1/3% fee breaches the agreement between Bradley and Urology, since, contractually, Bradley was only obligated to pay the ‘ osts of collection.’”

Based upon those facts, the court held “that Franklin violated the FDCPA when it collected from Bradley a debt that included a 33-and-1/3% ‘collection fee’ when Bradley only agreed to pay the actual costs of collection.” Notably, the court also stated that “this is not to say that Bradley and Urology could not have formed an agreement allowing for the collection of the percentage-based fee.”

Agents of Domestic Corporations Cannot Be Used To Establish Venue

In Sunshine State Insurance Company v. Patricia Munoz-Upton and Rick Fox-Upton (3D13–0573), the Third District reversed an order denying a motion to transfer venue. The dispute related to an insurance loss for property located in Palm Beach County. “The unrebutted record in this case is that although insurance agents statewide write Sunshine State policies, Sunshine State itself keeps an office for the transaction of its customary business only in Duval, and not in Miami-Dade County.”

The insured argued that Miami-Dade was a proper venue because the insurer has agents in the county. The court disagreed and stated that “this method of conducting business through an agent does not make venue proper in an action against a domestic corporation wherever such agents are located because ‘the statutory provisions concerning an agent apply to foreign corporations only.’”

“The appropriate test is whether venue has been lodged in the county where the domestic corporation has an office for transaction of its customary business, here, Duval County. Alternatively, venue may be proper where the cause of action accrued or where the property at issue is located, here, Palm Beach County.”

In this case, venue was proper in Palm Beach, and not Miami-Dade and the trial court’s order was reversed.

Florida Rules of Procedure Regarding Recall of Mandate Amended

The Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion today in In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (SC13-1670) amending the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and Florida Rules of Judicial Administration regarding the recall of a court’s mandate. On January 1, 2014, the changes below will be made. If you have comments, you must submit them to the Court within sixty days of today. 

Rule 9.340, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, will be amended to include the underlined text below. 

(a) Issuance and Recall of Mandate. Unless otherwise ordered by the court or provided by these rules, the clerk shall issue such mandate or process as may be directed by the court after expiration of 15 days from the date of an order or decision. A copy thereof, or notice of its issuance, shall be served on all parties. The court may direct the clerk to recall the mandate, but not more than 120 days after its issuance.

Rule 2.205(b)(5), will be amended as indicated below (underlined text is new):

(5) Issuance and Recall of Mandate; Recordation and Notification. The clerk shall issue such mandates or process as may be directed by the court. If, within 120 days after a mandate has been issued, the court directs that a mandate be recalled, then the clerk shall recall the mandate. Upon the issuance or recall of any mandate, the clerk shall record the issuance or recall in a book or equivalent electronic record kept for that purpose, in which the date of issuance or date of recall and the manner of transmittal of the process shall be noted. In proceedings in which no mandate is issued, upon final adjudication of the pending cause the clerk shall transmit to the party affected thereby a copy of the court’s order or judgment. The clerk shall notify the attorneys of record of the issuance of any mandate, the recall of any mandate, or the rendition of any final judgment. The clerk shall furnish without charge to all attorneys of record in any cause a copy of any order or written opinion rendered in such action.

Additionally, Rule 2.210(b)(4) will be amended as follows (underlined text is new):

(4) Issuance and Recall of Mandate; Recordation and Notification. The clerk shall issue such mandates or process as may be directed by the court. If, within 120 days after a mandate has been issued, the court directs that a mandate be recalled, then the clerk shall recall the mandate. If the court directs that a mandate record shall be maintained, then upon the issuance or recall of any mandate the clerk shall record the issuance or recall in a book or equivalent electronic record kept for that purpose, in which shall be noted the date of issuance or the date of recall and the manner of transmittal of the process. In proceedings in which no mandate is issued, upon final adjudication of the pending cause the clerk shall transmit to the party affected thereby a copy of the court’s order or judgment. The clerk shall notify the attorneys of record of the issuance of any mandate, the recall of any mandate, or the rendition of any final judgment. The clerk shall furnish without charge to all attorneys of record in any cause a copy of any order or written opinion rendered in such action.

Court Must Only Rule Upon Issues Presented And Party Is Entitled To Notice Of All Issues To Be Considered

In Worthington v. Worthington (2D12-1361), the Second District reversed, in part, an order entered by the trial court because the order granted relief not requested in the motion pending before it and because the party opposing the motion had not received notice that other issues would be considered. The court stated:

In modification proceedings, as in other civil matters, courts are not authorized to award relief not requested in the pleadings. To grant unrequested relief is an abuse of discretion and reversible error.” Abbott v. Abbott, 98 So. 3d 616, 617-18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a court should not grant such relief absent proper notice to the parties. Sinton v. Sinton, 749 So. 2d 532, 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).