Petition For Certiorari Denied Due to District Conflict

In The First Liberty Insurance Corp. v. O’Neill (4D14–2895), the Fourth District denied a petition for certiorari because the Fourth District had not decided the issue at the time of the trial court’s decision.

In this case, when the trial court entered the order the First District and the Fifth District had released conflicting decisions on the same issue. However, “at the time of the circuit court’s decisions, we had not addressed the issue of whether an insured, after obtaining a favorable result on its benefits claim, may amend the complaint to add a first-party bad faith claim instead of filing a new action on the bad faith claim.”

Therefore, because there was no clearly established law, the petition was denied. The court stated:

Given the lack of binding authority from this court on the underlying issue, and given the split of authority between our sister courts on the underlying issue, we cannot say that the circuit court’s apparent decision to follow the First District’s authority was a departure from the essential requirements of the law at the time of its decision. Thus, because of that procedural posture, we are compelled to deny the petition for writ of certiorari and not decide the underlying issue until a final appealable judgment is entered.

The First Amendment Protections Afforded To A "Tattoo Establishment"

Is a city allowed to limit the number of tattoo establishments in a certain area? In Buehrle v. City of Key West (No. 14–15354), the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court that “tattooing is protected artistic expression, but we reverse the summary judgment because, on the record before us, the City has failed to show that the ordinance is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.”

The opinion, written by Judge Jill Pryor, includes a discussion about the protection to be afforded tattoos under the First Amendment and rejects an argument by the City that relied on “a number of district and state court decisions drawing a distinction between the process of creating a tattoo and the tattoo itself.” The court stated that “consistent with the Supreme Court’s teaching, the right to display a tattoo loses meaning if the government can freely restrict the right to obtain a tattoo in the first place.” Therefore, the district court’s holding that tattoos are protected speech was affirmed.

However, the court reversed the district court’s holding that the regulation was constitutional. Citing the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit stated that “a municipality may regulate protected artistic expression only if the regulation (1) is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, (2) is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and (3) leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” The City is required to satisfy this test, and present evidence that does so.

In trying to meet that burden, Jimmy Buffet was referenced twice in the record to support the ordinance. The court stated:

Jimmy Buffett’s song “Margaritaville” was referenced twice in the record, once by Mr. Craig in his deposition and once by the City’s attorney in oral argument before the district court, to support the claim that inebriated tourists are likely to get and then regret tattoos if more tattoo establishments operate in the historic district. But the singer in “Margaritaville”—seemingly far from suffering embarrassment over his tattoo—considers it “a real beauty.” Jimmy Buffett, “Margaritaville,” on Songs You Know by Heart (Geffen Records 1985).

Clearly, the reference to Jimmy Buffett did not sway the Eleventh Circuit. In this case, the court stated that it did not doubt the legitimate government interest expressed by the city, but stated that the city had failed to meet its burden to show that the regulation would serve that interest.

Motion for Attorneys Fees in Original Proceeding Must Be Filed Before Disposition

In Geico General Insurance Company v. Moultrop (4D15-2772, Nov. 12, 2015), the Fourth District wrote an opinion on a motion for attorneys fees filed after a petition for writ of certiorari was denied. The court stated:

Rule 9.400(b)(2) provides that “in original proceedings” a motion for attorney’s fees “shall be served not later than . . . the time for service of the petitioner’s reply to the response to the petition.” Here, the court denied the petition without requiring a response to the petition or, obviously, a reply to a response. Having been first filed after the petition had been denied, the motion for appellate attorney’s fees is denied as untimely. 

Sanction Over Not Removing Prior Counsel From E-Service List Reversed

In Houston v. McKnought-Smith (4D14-4927), the Fourth District reversed a trial court's order sanctioning counsel and requiring the "former wife’s attorney to pay attorney’s fees to the former husband’s previous attorney."

The court "the previous attorney claimed that he had to file a motion requesting that the wife’s attorney be ordered not to serve him, and requesting attorney’s fees. In granting the motion and ordering the payment of fees at a non-evidentiary hearing, the court failed to make the necessary finding that the wife’s attorney acted in bad faith in serving the husband’s previous attorney." Therefore, the order was reversed in order to allow for an evidentiary hearing. 

There were also two footnotes in the opinion. The second footnote stated that "it is difficult to believe that any Moakley bad faith can be shown by the wife’s attorney’s service of two pleadings on the previous attorney (who had not withdrawn on the record). However, because there was no evidentiary hearing, all of the facts are not present. Nevertheless, it appears that professionalism has eluded these attorneys, burdening both the trial court and this court."

The first footnote indicates there was a question without an answer regarding e-filing. The court stated that "it is unclear whether the wife’s attorney could have prevented service through the electronic filing portal on an attorney that the portal had listed for service."  

I do not think the answer would impact the "it is difficult to believe" portion of the second footnote quoted above, because I think the court was indicating that it is difficult to believe that the conduct is sanctionable regardless of the ability to deselect a recipient. However, as shown below, page 6 of the Florida Court's E-Filing Portal Handbook shows that it is possible to deselect a recipient: 

The entire handbook can be viewed HERE. It is also possible to remove yourself from a service list:

See page 21 of the handbook.

The Length of Briefs

Regarding the appropriate length for appellate briefs, Judge Marstiller (First Distrct Court of Appeal) noted on Twitter that the "sizematters":

Not too short or simple though, exactly as short as possible.

Design for Startup: Everything about design for startups https://t.co/HopCqCVjg2 by @umitakcn pic.twitter.com/zBGMis0fCT

Product Hunt (@ProductHunt) December 13, 2015

Florida Appellate Practice and Advocacy, 7th Ed., by Raymond Elligett Jr. and John Scheb

A couple of new books have been released recently that are related to Florida law and the Florida courts, and I am linking to them in separate posts.

The Seventh Edition of Florida Appellate Practice and Advocacy, by Raymond T. Elligett, Jr. and John M. Scheb, was released on June 1, 2015. Previous editions were (and might still be) available exclusively through Stetson Law School, and this edition is available exclusively from Amazon.com at the link below:

Fifty Years of Justice: A History of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, by James M. Denham

A couple of books have been released recently that are related to Florida law and the Florida courts, and I am linking to them in separate posts.

At the beginning of June, James M. Denham, a professor at Florida Southern College, released his book Fifty Years of Justice: A History of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The court, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, issued a press release about the book which may be viewed HERE. The book is available from Amazon.com in print and Kindle versions at the link below:

Question As To Whether Legislature Can Limit Attorneys Fees in Claims Bill Sent To Florida Supreme Court

In July, the Fourth District issued an opinion discussed HERE in a post titled "Fourth District: Legislature Entitled To Limit Payment of Attorney's Fees In Claims Bill." Today, in THIS opinion, the court granted the Appellant's motion for certification as a question of great public importance and certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:

AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 768.28, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND THE ADOPTION OF FLORIDA SENATE RULE 4.81(6), IS IT CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES PAID FROM A GUARDIANSHIP TRUST ESTABLISHED BY A LEGISLATIVE CLAIMS BILL?

 All three members of the panel concurred in the certification order.

Fourth District: Medical Examination of Defendant Not Seeking Relief Must Occur Where Defendant Lives

In Bodzin v. Leviter (4D15-2122), the Fourth District held that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it entered an order requiring the non-resident defendant "to appear for an independent medical examination in Florida. See Youngblood v. Michaud, 593 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (independent medical examination of defendant should occur only in county of defendant’s residence)."

The majority opinion relied upon the Youngblood case cited above, and held that the "Respondent’s reliance on McKenney v. Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc., 686 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), is misplaced." In McKenney, "the trial court required a plaintiff to appear for an independent medical examination in the county where the plaintiff filed suit, and our court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion."

In this case, it was the plaintiff seeking an IME of the defendant, a defendant that was not seeking affirmative relief. Therefore, the court stated that "here, the gravamen of the cause of action in this case─investment fraud─has nothing to do with defendant’s condition. Thus, Youngblood, and not McKenney, is on point."

The court's majority opinion concluded as follows:

There is no rule or statute which requires the defendant to testify at the trial. See Graber v. Gassman, 321 So. 2d 82, 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Obviously, petitioner does not intend to testify at trial, and there is nothing in this record to show that respondent has subpoenaed him and intends to call him as a witness. Although petitioner does not object to the examination, he objects to an examination outside of his state of residence. If respondent still wishes to obtain an examination, she must schedule one there. 

The majority opinion was written by Judge Warner, and Judge Levine concurred. Judge Conner wrote a dissenting opinion. Judge Conner's dissent stated, in part, as follows:

I respectfully disagree with the majority. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360 does not limit its application to a party seeking affirmative relief. Instead, the rule allows for the examination of a party “when the condition that is the subject of the requested examination is in controversy.” Fla. R. Civ. Proc. 1.360(a)(1) (emphasis added). I disagree that the rule works differently depending on whether it is a plaintiff or defendant being examined. I have found no case law in Florida that holds the rule works differently, depending on which party is being examined.