Office of Attorney General Pam Bondi
Appellate Alert
__________________________________________________________________
Date issued: 09/23/2014
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 2014-11
September 23, 2014
Florida Supreme Court
The Florida Virtual School v. K12, Inc. SC13-1934
9/18/14
The Florida Virtual School has the authority to bring a trademark infringement suit on its own behalf to protect its intellectual property.
The Florida Virtual School is an agency of the State. K12, a private corporation, began using a very similar name and website to provide similar services. The Florida Virtual School brought an action for trademark infringement. K12, the Defendant argued that the Florida Virtual School did not have standing to bring the action because the only agency with authority to bring a trademark action was the Department of State.
In its review, the Florida Supreme Court concentrated on two statutes, the one creating the Florida Virtual School and also the one which authorizes the Department of State to secure trademarks. The Court referred to the plain language of the Florida Virtual school statute to determine that the legislature intended the program to be a corporate body and to have the authority necessary for its proper operation. The Court went on to note that the Florida Virtual school statute was passed more recently and was also more specific than the Department of State statute. As a result it was controlling if there was a conflict between it and the Department of State statute. The Court concluded by saying, “Our interpretation of section 1002.37 constitutes a rational construction that effectuates the broad grant of rights and powers to the Florida Virtual School by the Legislature. It is simply not logical for a State entity to have the authority to “acquire, enjoy, use, and dispose of patents, copyrights, and trademarks and any licenses and other rights or interests thereunder or therein,” § 1002.37(2) (c), Fla. Stat., but then be powerless to protect that intellectual property from infringement. Accordingly, we hold that where this State entity has been specifically granted rights with regard to intellectual property as those listed in the enabling statute of the Florida Virtual School, that entity possesses the authority to enforce and protect its rights through legal action.”
SC13-1934
Second District Court of Appeal
Chmielewski v. City of St. Pete Beach 2D13-4923
8/27/14
Court concluded that, for the purposes of public records law, parties’ settlement agreement finalized the litigation even though parties agreed to mediate future disputes.
Transcript of shade meeting was subject to disclosure after parties signed a settlement agreement.
Parties were in an action to quiet title on a parcel of beachfront property. Eventually they reached a settlement agreement in which there was an understanding that the Plaintiffs were given ownership of the property. They also agreed that further disputes regarding the property would be submitted to mediation. During course of litigation and before settlement was reached City officials conducted a “shade meeting” with their attorneys. The transcripts of “shade meetings” were considered confidential until the litigation is finalized. About a year later the Plaintiffs brought an inverse condemnation action. During that litigation they sought a copy of the transcript of the shade meeting. The City argued that the transcript was still confidential because the parties had agreed to submit to mediation if further disputes arose. In other words, they argued that the litigation had not actually been finalized. The trial court found in favor of the City.
The Second District reversed, finding that the settlement agreement did bring the litigation to a conclusion.
2D13-4923
Fourth District Court of Appeal
Yasir v. Forman 4D13-33369/10/14
If Clerk’s delay in providing documents for public records request was not justified, the Plaintiff was entitled to court costs.
The Plaintiff, an inmate, made two public records request for documents from his criminal file. When the Clerk’s office failed to respond, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus which was granted by the trial court. In response to the court mandate, the Clerk’s office provided the copies at a cost. The Plaintiff then filed a motion to tax costs which was denied by the trial court.
The Fourth District said that the trial court did not make a determination as to whether the Clerk’s four month delay was justified. The Court said if the delay was not justified then the Plaintiff would be entitled to costs.
4D13-3336
Fifth District Court of Appeal
Schwades v. America’s Wholesale Lender, et al. 5D13-3518
9/5/14
Attorney who had brought similar frivolous lawsuit was subject to sanctions in this case as well.
Plaintiffs/Appellants brought an action to quiet title. Their action was dismissed and they appealed.
In its review, the Fifth District noted that Plaintiff/Appellants’ attorney had brought an action based on the very same issues in a previous case. The attorney was sanctioned in that earlier case because of the frivolous nature of the appeal. The Court said, “The appellants' attorney, Kelley Bosecker, knew or should have known, since the filing of her initial brief, that the claims asserted therein were not supported by the material facts of record. As such, counsel acted in bad faith in this matter. Therefore, we sua sponte award the appellees attorney's fees for this appeal.” The Court went on to point that the Plaintiff/Appellants attorney had also been sanctioned in federal court.
5D13-3518