Office of Attorney General Pam Bondi
Appellate Alert
__________________________________________________________________
Date issued: 11/04/2014
Editor: Betsy Stupski
Clicking the icon following the number of each case cited below will link you directly to the cited opinion. In addition, full texts of recent slip opinions are available by clicking "VIEW" at the top of your screen, then "SLIP OPINIONS." AGOs are available in the separate AGO database.
Appellate Alert 2014-13
November 4, 2014
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Cambridge University Press v. Patton 12-14676
10/17/14
Georgia State University employees did not violate copyright law by using excerpts of books in their Library electronic reserves and electronic course packs.
Several publishers sued Defendants at Georgia State University. They claimed that copying excerpts of their books for Library reserves and other electronic uses without paying a license fee violated federal copyright law. The district court reviewed each of 74 incidences separately using a four part test for fair use. The district court concluded that there were a handful of incidences that did violate the copyright law.
In a very thorough analysis, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court. The Eleventh Circuit found that the district court had properly reviewed each instance of copying separately but had erred in weighing each of the fair use factors equally. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief. The Court said, “Because the District Court’s grant of injunctive relief to Plaintiffs was predicated on its finding of infringement, which was in turn based on the District Court’s legally flawed methodology in balancing the four fair use factors and erroneous application of factors two and three, we find that the District Court abused its discretion in granting the injunction and the related declaratory relief.”
12-14676
First District Court of Appeal
Mayor Alvin Brown v. Denton 1D14-43
10/21/14
Defendants violated Florida Sunshine Law when they had closed mediations where they discussed collective bargaining issues for public employees.
Several firefighters including the chief negotiator for the union brought suit in federal court against the City of Jacksonville. The parties then all agreed to mediation. They met several times behind closed doors. Although not parties to the litigation, other interested groups attended the mediation meetings. There was a not public meeting announcement even though the Florida Statutes require that collective bargaining with public employees be held as a public meeting. The final result of the meetings was a Mediation Settlement Agreement which contained provisions relating to defined pension benefits. The editor of the Jacksonville-Times Union then sued, arguing that the closed door sessions amounted to collective bargaining and, therefore, subject to the Sunshine Law. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the newspaper editor.
The Mayor and the City appealed. The First District affirmed the trial court. The Court said, “We affirm the order on appeal under the broad public policy of Florida’s Sunshine Law. We cannot condone hiding behind federal mediation, whether intentionally or unintentionally, in an effort to thwart the requirements of the Sunshine Law. Caution should be taken to comply with the Sunshine Law, and compliance should be the default rather than the exception. …. (‘The principle to be followed is very simple: When in doubt, the members of any board, agency, authority or commission should follow the open-meeting policy of the State.’). By holding closed-door negotiations that resulted in changes to public employee’s pension benefits, the appellants ignored an important party who also had the right to be in the room – the public.”
1D14-43
Second District Court of Appeal
2245 Venetian Court Building 4, Inc. v. San Marino Properties, LLC 2D14-1208
10/24/14
Although the subpoenaed corporation was not a party to the original action, its financial records were relevant for postjudgment discovery because Plaintiffs showed a close relationship between the corporation and the Defendants.
Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against two individuals. Those two individuals were associated with to business ventures, one of which was named Venetian. The Plaintiffs post-judgment sought financial records from Venetian. Venetian objected because they were not a party to the litigation and also argued privacy rights. The trial court found the documents to be relevant and ordered that they be produced. Venetian appealed.
The Second District began its analysis by making a distinction between prejudgment and post judgment discovery. The Court said, "… In the prejudgment context, ‘a party is entitled only to the opponent's financial records that pertain to the pending action. "But in postjudgment discovery, the dispute in the original civil action has been resolved [and, therefore] [t]he matters relevant for discovery [are those] that will enable the judgment creditor to collect the debt.’” The Court went on to affirm that the Plaintiffs had demonstrated a close relationship between the Defendants and Venetian.
2D14-1208
Fourth District Court of Appeal
City of Fort Lauderdale v. Dhar 4D13-1187
10/22/14
With regard to red light cameras, it is a violation of equal protection and due process for cities to treat short term renters differently from car owners.
The Defendant rented from Dollar Rent A Car and ran a red light outfitted with a camera. Dollar Rent A Car received a notice regarding the violation. They sent an affidavit to the City identifying the Defendant as the person having control of the vehicle at the time of the violation. As a result the Defendant received a citation. She was charged extra court costs because the initial deadline for responding to the ticket had passed. She sued for violation of equal protection and due process rights. She argued that short term renters were treated differently than other drivers. The trial court dismissed the citation in favor of the Defendant.
The Fourth District affirmed the trial court. The Court said, “In sum, the City failed to present any meritorious argument that supports treating short-term renters differently than registered owners and lessees under the pre-2013 version of the statute. Accordingly, the county court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the traffic citation for violating Defendant’s equal protection and due process rights is affirmed.”
4D13-1187