Keep modern at the state-of-the-art commercial enterprise case regulation developments with this evaluation from CLE presenter Paige Greenlee at the 2019 Florida Bar Annual Convention. Paige and host Laurence Colletti speak about the Florida case regulation updates from June 2018 to May 2019. The fast overview of every case and its final results and spotlight a number of the greater colorful situations that led to litigation. From a cruise delivery diamond buy long gone incorrect to a dispute over an actual property deal at a tailgate birthday party that may have in no way happened–music in for this CLE evaluation!
Intro: Welcome to The Florida Bar Podcast, where we spotlight the latest tendencies in law workplace and legal exercise control that will help you run your regulation company, delivered to you via The Florida Bar’s Practice Resource Center. You are taking note of the Legal Talk Network.
Laurence Colletti: Hello. Welcome to The Florida Bar Podcast, recorded from the 2019 Florida Bar Annual Convention in Boca Raton, Florida. This is Laurence Colletti, and I’m the host for today’s show. I’m stepping in for the everyday host Christine Bilbrey and Karla Eckardt but worry not, I actually have a wonderful guest becoming a member of us clean, fresh from the Florida Law Update. It’s Paige Greenlee; you’re imparting at the Business Law Update.
Welcome to the display.
Paige Greenlee: Thank you. Thank you for having me.
Laurence Colletti: Excellent. Well, I got a threat; however, we don’t regularly get to visit the periods because we’re generally pinned across the table, however, not this morning. So I went in, I listened to what you had to mention. Loads are happening all through this year, and so to carve that out, you included some case law from June 2018 to May 2019.
But before we get to that, allow’s recognize a little bit greater approximately you, where do you work, what do you do?
Paige Greenlee: Sure. My call — nicely, manifestly, my call is Paige Greenlee; I work for myself now. I’m a veteran of large regulation but began my very own company; it’ll be five years in October that I’ve been by myself, and I do business litigation. So this all this enterprise law stuff is proper up my alley.
Laurence Colletti: Let’s get on your enterprise law replace. So once more, just with the aid of way of overview, June 2018 thru May 2019, case law updates and so, I assume we ought to pass into the lawyer’s prices, and you had several cases, and I assume this is the meat of your presentation.
So permit’s start with the first case, Goersch v. The city of Satellite Beach.
Paige Greenlee: Yeah, this situation addresses whether or not the secure harbor carrier of Rule 57. One zero five Motion must strictly comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516. And the court docket ended up determining that sure; you do must serve it that way, you may’t serve it through the mail, you can’t serve it using e-mail, you can’t serve it by fax to satisfy the requirements of the carrier in advance of filing that motion 30 days later if the offense of pleading isn’t withdrawn.
So that’s a sizeable problem, at the least, the Fifth Circuit has held that way. There is a break up amongst circuits in Florida; however, higher to be safe than sorry; if you’re serving that type of motion, serve it the proper manner, observe the Rule of Judicial Administration.
Paige Greenlee: Resource Services.
Laurence Colletti: Resource Services, okay.
Paige Greenlee: Yes, yes, and this I notion was a fascinating case and that I’m surprised that the defendants tried to record a motion for lawyer’s prices here due to the fact in Florida there’s a trendy rule that after a plaintiff dismisses a case, the prevailing party is the celebration that had the case dismissed in opposition to them.
And so here, the parties entered into a settlement, and that required the plaintiff to dismiss the case, after they have been performed, the defendant kind of stated, oh was given you, and filed a movement for winning birthday celebration lawyer’s prices. The courtroom said no, no, no, you both compromise to settle it, no person’s the prevailing birthday party. Bye-bye.
Laurence Colletti: All right, Allen v. Nunez.
Paige Greenlee: This is a proposal for agreement, that’s something that every attorney cringes, I assume when they start making ready them because courts are all around the place on what they put into effect and whether they’ll implement them however while you’re speaking about them with your client, all of your consumers right here says I’m going to get my attorneys costs if I win in this proposal for settlement.
So in this situation, the plaintiff served an equal suggestion for settlement on extraordinary defendants. It was a father and son, the daddy was the car owner, the son became the driver of the automobile, served the equal proposal for settlement on each of them, and that proposals have been now not well-known through the defendants. The plaintiff prevailed at trial and then moved to enforce the proposal for settlement.
The defendants argued that it turned into ambiguous because they couldn’t understand whether or not one of them may want to settle the entire case by accepting the inspiration for agreement. The Florida Supreme Court said that that become a disingenuous argument and enforced the idea for settlement.