September 2009 Archives

In this non-compete case, the trial court entered an order enjoining defendants from soliciting plaintiffs' "current or prospective clients" who practiced in the area of orthopedic medicine.  The order did not specify the duration of the restriction.  The Fourth District reversed and remanded, holding that Rule 1.610(c) requires that the order define the referenced "clients" more specifically and that a time restriction be specified in the injunction.

4UORTHO, LLC et al. v. Practice Partners, Inc. et al., 34 Fla. L. Wkly D1847a (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 9, 2009)

In this case, defendant moved to vacate a default on the basis that plaintiff improperly used substitute service to serve the complaint.  The trial court denied the motion.  The appellate court affirmed, holding that defendant's continued inaccessibility at his residence obviated the need for defendant to be served personally.

De Armand l. Hull vs. The Lending House, Inc., 34 Fla. L. Wkly D1815b (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 2, 2009)

In this motorcycle injury case, the trial court found that plaintiff's counsel had engaged in misconduct throughout the trial but nonetheless denied defendant's motion for new trial. The trial court reasoned that because defense counsel did not move for a mistrial after the court had sustained various objections, the defense had waived any right to a new trial. The trial court ruled further that under the circumstances the defense could not show that "failure to grant a new trial would undermine the public's confidence in the justice system." The Second District reversed and held that the trial court used the wrong standard, stating that the trial court "only needed to consider whether opposing counsel's misconduct deprived the [defendant] of a fair trial. Having found that it did, the trial court should have granted the City's motion."  

City of Tampa v. Ramiro Companioni, Jr., 34 Fla. L. Wkly D1777a (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 28, 2009)