Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., Case No. 18–1086 (2020).
“Defense preclusion” is not a recognized defense as the two acceptable doctrines are issue preclusion (a party is barred from relitigating an issue actually decided in a prior action that was necessary to the judgment; commonly called collateral estoppel) and claim preclusion (a party is barred from raising claims that could have been raised and decided in a prior action; commonly called res judicata); suits involve the same claim or “cause of action” when they “‘aris[e] from the same transaction’” or involve a “common nucleus of operative facts.”
Harbourside Place, LLC v. Town Of Jupiter, Florida, Case No. 18-12457 (11th Cir. 2020).
Governmental noise ordinances, including those imposed on businesses, generally do not violate the First Amendment if they are content-neutral and do not single out any specific type of speech, subject-matter, or message.
Decks N Such Marine, Inc. v. Daake, Case No. 1D18-1396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).
Junior interest holders who prevail in construction lien enforcement and foreclosure actions may not recover attorney’s fees under Florida Statute section 713.29.
Scott v. Strategic Realty Fund, Case No. 2D18-3839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
A backdated assignment is capable of two inferences, i.e., documenting an already completed transaction or backdating an event to a party’s benefit, and as a result, typically does not support entry of summary judgment.
Weisman v. Southern Wine & Spirits Of America, Inc., Case No. 4D17-3734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
The Personal Stake Exception to the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine Defense to claims of interference with business relationships requires that the corporate agents be solely motivated by personal basis.