Office of Attorney General Pam Bondi
Appellate Alert
__________________________________________________________________
Date issued: 12/09/2014
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 2014-15
December 9, 2014
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
LeBron v. Sec. of the Florida Dept. of Children and Families 14-10322
12/3/14
The State cannot conduct suspicionless drug testing of all TANF applicants.
Section 414.0652, Florida Statutes mandated the suspicionless drug testing for applicants for TANF benefits. Plaintiff, an applicant for benefits, refused the test and was denied benefits. He sued, arguing that the statute violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal search and seizure. The State, in turn, argued that they had a special need to drug test all TANF applicants. The district court granted a summary judgment to the Plaintiff and declared the statute unconstitutional.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court. The Court said, “On this record the State has failed to meet its burden of establishing a substantial need to drug test all TANF applicants without any suspicion…The ordinary government interests claimed in this case are nothing like the narrow category of special needs that justify blanket drug testing of railroad workers, certain federal Customs employees involved in drug interdiction or who carry firearms, or students who participate in extracurricular activities because those programs involve ‘surpassing safety interests’.”
14-10322
Florida Supreme Court
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration SC14-721
11/26/14
All documents electronically filed in state court must be digitally searchable.
The Florida Supreme Court approved amendments that require all documents electronically filed to be filed in a digitally searchable format. In addition to existing recording space requirements in the rules, the Court established a required margin of one inch (which must be kept blank) on all sides of the document. Changes take effect January 1, 2015.
SC14-721
Third District Court of Appeal
Orthopedic Care Center v. Parks 3D14-988
11/26/14
Expert must disclose which of his past testimony was related to patients and which was provided as an IME and CME expert report.
Dr. Garcia, Defendant’s expert often conducted IME and CME’s. During discovery he was ask to identify names in the previous trials in which he testified. He identified 205 names. Plaintiffs then asked how many listed involved his patients and how many involved expert IME or CME reports. Defendants objected, arguing that the disclosure would violate the patients’ right under the Florida Statutes. The trial court required the disclosure.
Orthopedic appealed, arguing that the order violated section 456.057, Florida Statutes which prohibits the disclosure of patient information. The Third District determined that the trial court order did not violate the Florida Statutes because it did not require Orthopedic to provide any reports or any information regarding patients’ medical conditions.
3D14-988
Fourth District Court of Appeal
Bogdanoff v. Broken Sound Club, Inc. 4D13-3124
12/3/14
Plaintiffs were allowed to transfer their cause of action from county court to circuit court without amending the jurisdictional amount in their complaint.
The Broken Sound Club sued Bogdanoff in county court for delinquent dues. Later the Broken Sound Club moved to have the action transferred to circuit court because the dues continued to accrue to amount exceeding the limit for county court. They made their motion without amending the original complaint. Bogdanoff objected to the transfer saying that the amount listed in the original complaint controlled the jurisdiction and therefore the circuit court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The trial court ruled in favor of the Broken Sound Club.
The Fourth District affirmed the lower court, saying “In our instant case, transfer of the cause was proper where the amount owed by Appellant to Broken Sound continued to accrue over the years of pending litigation and the county court would have been precluded from entering a final judgment as to the correct amount owed, which exceeded $15,000.” The Court went on to say, “Whereas the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to put Appellant on notice that monthly dues and fees would continue to accrue after the filing of the complaint, it was not essential for Broken Sound to amend the complaint to reflect such accrual.”
4D13-3124
Medytox Solutions, inc. v. Investorshub.com 4D13-3469
12/3/14
Website operator was immune under the Communications Decency Act and not subject to Florida lawsuit requesting injunctive relief.
Investorhub.com operates a website that serves as a forum for investors to discuss financial markets. One of their customer participants posted several allegedly defamatory about another participant. The other participant sought injunctive relief against Investorshub.com in circuit court. Investorshub.com moved to dismiss, arguing that they were immune from suit pursuant to the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C 230). The trial court granted the dismissal.
On appeal, the Plaintiffs argued that the immunity afforded by the Communications Decency Act did not apply to equitable actions filed under Florida law. The Court said, “The statute precludes not only ‘liability,’ but also causes of action for other forms of relief based upon any State or local law inconsistent with section 230. An action to force a website to remove content on the sole basis that the content is defamatory is necessarily treating the website as a publisher, and is therefore inconsistent with section 230. Thus, by the plain language of the statute, the immunity afforded by section 230 encompasses the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief sought in this case.”
4D13-3469
Fifth District Court of Appeal
Bennett v. Clerk of Circuit Citrus County, Florida 5D14-2875
11/7/14
Individual was not entitled to free copies or records beyond those needed for direct appeal and sentencing.
Mandamus action in the appellate court was not an appropriate starting point to complain about a public records violation.
Petitioner filed an action in the Fifth District for mandamus. He was indigent and sought to have the Citrus County Clerk provide certain records free of charge to assist him in his effort to gain post conviction remedies. He objected to the $1.00 per page charge. The Fifth District said the petitioner’s right to the record in his trial does not extend the right to free copies to indigents beyond the direct appeal of judgment and sentence. In addition the court found that a litigant who seeks action from the trial court clerk to provide documents or accept filings cannot start with mandamus at the appellate court.
5D14-2875