Clark, Fountain, Littky-Rubin & Whitman

Clark, Fountain, Littky-Rubin & Whitman has filed a lawsuit against Boar’s Head Provisions Co. and Publix Supermarkets, stemming from a recent and widespread Listeria outbreak. The case arises from the contamination of over 7.2 million pounds of deli meats, which were sold to different retailers throughout the country, including Publix Supermarkets, Walmart, Target, and Trader Joe’s, and have been linked to numerous hospitalizations and several fatalities. The lawsuit is based on operational failures at Boar’s Head and Publix, where lapses in food safety protocols allowed Listeria monocytogenes to contaminate deli meats. These products were then distributed and sold at Publix stores, leading to a life-threatening illness by Clark Fountain’s client, including meningitis and encephalitis. https://lnkd.in/gxaT7fEc

What does the Rule say? The prevailing party sought attorneys’ fees based upon its offer of judgment. The rule expressly requires that the offer of judgment states “that the proposal resolves all damages that would otherwise be awarded in a final judgment in the action in which the proposal is served.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(B). Because the appellant’s proposal did not state that it would resolve all damages in the action or use the language required by the rule, the trial court properly refused to enforce it. https://lnkd.in/eQmgPWb5

Amendment 7 has more hurdles than the track at the Olympics The trial court ordered a surgical center to produce documents contained in the doctor’s credentialing file in the underlying medical malpractice/negligent credentialing lawsuit. The order came after an in camera inspection and the trial court’s conclusion that the documents contained in the credentialing file were discoverable pursuant to Article X, Section 25 of the Florida Constitution (Amendment 7). The court acknowledged that the credentialing committee’s file contained documents that it considered in its decision-making process and would largely be protected by Florida’s peer review statutes found in sections 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), and 766.101(5). The court then considered whether the allegation of negligent credentialing itself met Amendment 7’s definition of an “adverse medical incident.” In analyzing the constitutional provision, the court noted that Amendment 7 creates a constitutional right to obtain records considered or created by a hospital board that may otherwise be protected by the peer review statutes, provided the records concern adverse medical incidents. General credentialing information unrelated to an adverse medical incident is not included in Amendment 7. https://lnkd.in/g_YP8V8r

𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐌𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐛𝐲 𝐙𝐨𝐨𝐦? The defendant challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to quash service of process and the subsequent denial of his motion for sanctions and motion to dismiss. The court observed that the orders denying the appellant’s motion for sanctions and motion to dismiss were not appealable under Rule 9.130, and the court dismissed the appeal as to those orders. The defendant claimed the trial court denied him due process, because the trial court scheduled the motion to quash at a time he had filed a notice of unavailability. However, the appellate court noted that the defendant failed to move to continue the hearing. https://lnkd.in/e9uSfshW

𝐖𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐮𝐲! The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice case. After more than three years of litigation, the court conducted a five-day jury trial, leading to a verdict for the defendant doctor and hospital. Five days after the defense verdict, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking a new trial based on alleged concealment of information by a juror during voir dire and his further misconduct during trial. Specifically, during jury selection, the juror was asked if he had ever been involved in a lawsuit before and responded “never.” The answer was devoid of equivocation or uncertainty, and the court found it was clear and unambiguous. The plaintiff alleged in her motion for new trial that the juror had been involved in no fewer than five prior litigations, two of which were civil cases where he was the named defendant, and also had two criminal cases filed against him (one for DUI and one for domestic battery), as well as a long-standing bankruptcy case. https://lnkd.in/e8gWb-cg

𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐛𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐚 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 The trial court imposed sanctions (fees and costs for the time involved in the mis-tried case) against an attorney and his law firm for the attorney’s actions in causing a mistrial in a personal injury case. The court also ordered the attorney to send a copy of the order imposing sanctions within 45 days to every current litigation client to whom the attorney had billed his time, and to each insurance carrier that paid the attorney for the work billed by him within those 45 days. The attorney and his firm asserted that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing sanctions because (a) they were not warranted; (b) the trial court lacked authority to direct the attorney and his firm to send a copy of the court’s order to clients and insurance carriers; (c) even if the court had authority to direct the order to be sent to clients and insurance carriers, it was an abuse of discretion to do so; (d) the trial court violated the attorney’s due process rights by imposing sanctions without affording an opportunity to present evidence or call witnesses opposing the sanctions; and (e) the trial court erred by imposing sanctions without sufficient findings. https://lnkd.in/e6SFMYyZ

Attorney Daniel D. Walker Secures Significant Settlement In Defective Airbag Deployment Case The client was a front seat passenger in a vehicle traveling on a highway when another vehicle struck the side of the client’s vehicle. Although the forces involved in the impact were relatively low, the side and front airbags deployed with excessive force (sometimes referred to as an aggressive deployment), resulting in catastrophic injuries to the client. The catastrophic nature of the injuries in a low-speed collision suggested a defect in the design or manufacture of the airbags. Upon retaining Daniel D. Walker, Clark Fountain initiated a thorough investigation. Walker, renowned for his dedication to uncovering the truth, mobilized a team of experts to examine the airbag system. Their findings confirmed Walker’s suspicions—the airbag deployment was defective, and had it functioned properly, our client’s injuries would have been prevented. https://lnkd.in/dNk_s6Jy

So close, yet so far. A young woman attended an event held in the vicinity of a parking lot owned by Alachua County. While returning to her car parked at a location that was not owned by the county, a stray bullet fired by an individual, who was located in the county parking lot, struck and killed her. Her personal representative sued the county, asserting that due to inadequate lighting and security in the parking lot, the killer and his cohorts were able to congregate and lie in ambush in the parking lot waiting for the crowds to leave to perpetrate their crimes.

Something old something new In this incident at a Burger King, a man reported a slippery, “greasy” floor to the manager after he fell. The manager inspected and found the floor clean and not greasy, though she instructed an employee to “touch it up.” The plaintiff and his wife recorded a video showing the slippery condition, which they presented during the trial. Following the fall, the plaintiff experienced back pain and, two weeks later, he began treating with a doctor, which ultimately led to back surgery. He suffered bad constipation after the surgery and used an enema to relieve it as the doctor advised. Unfortunately, it appeared that the “forceful enema” use led to a perforated colon, necessitating a second (emergency) surgery, a prolonged hospital stay, and four months of wearing a colostomy bag. https://lnkd.in/eB5jngmm

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐲 “𝐊𝐨𝐳𝐞𝐥”?! The plaintiff missed a discovery deadline contained in an agreed order on a motion for extension of time to respond to discovery. In response, the defendants moved for an involuntary dismissal under Rule 1.420(h). After conducting a non-evidentiary hearing on the matter, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s case without prejudice. The appellate court reversed, finding that the dismissal order did not reflect that the trial court considered the six necessary factors set forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993) before dismissing the action. https://lnkd.in/ejRrPZBq