Liu v. Securities And Exchange Commission, Case No. 18–1501 (2020).
Equitable relief, including disgorgement, is permissible under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. §77a et seq., so long as it does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profit.
Bowling v. U.S. Bank National Association, Case No. 17-11953 (11th Cir. 2020).
Counterclaim defendants may not remove a civil action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) or § 1441(c).
EGI-VSR, LLC v. Coderch, Case No. 18-12615 (11th Cir. 2020).
Service of a suit to confirm an arbitration award under the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory (“Convention on Letters Rogatory”), Jan. 30, 1975, O.A.S.T.S. No. 43, 1438 U.N.T.S. 288, is accomplished by service under the laws of the host country of the defendant, and accordingly, service on a doorman that is proper under Brazilian law is sufficient to support service in federal court.
Russell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1D18-5128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).
Raising failure of conditions precedent as an affirmative defense shifts the burden of proof to the defendant even if plaintiff alleged satisfaction of conditions precedent in its complaint.
Korkmas v. Onyx Creative Group, Case No. 1D18-5328 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).
The Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act does not apply to debts arising out commercial transactions.
Phillips v. Mitchell’s Lawn Maintenance Corp., Case Nos. 3D19-375 & 3D18-2407 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
A trial judge must set forth in writing the Kozel (v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)), factors only when entering sanctions as the result of misconduct by counsel, no such requirement applies when the sanctions arise out of misconduct by a party.
Aanonsen v. Suarez, Case Nos. 3D18-2466 & 3D19-0612 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
Damages arising out of breach of contract are generally limited to the pecuniary loss sustained, or those which are the natural and proximate result of the breach, unless there is proof of a separate and independent tort.
Dumerlus v. Wilmington Trust National Association, Case No. 3D19-1595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
A trial court’s dispensing with closing arguments in a civil foreclosure case is not a per se due process violation.
Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation v. Latitude on the River Condominium Association, Inc., Case Nos. 3D19-2054; 3D19-2053; 3D19-2051; 3D19-2048; 3D19-2046; 3D19-2044 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.221 permits a class action by a condominium association for construction defects located physically within units, rather than in the common elements, if the defect is prevalent throughout the building.
Dawson v. Hernandez, Case No. 4D18-1588 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
A trial court can amend a final foreclosure judgment – even after the borrower redeems the property – to include additional attorney’s fees.