Florida Real Property and Business Litigation Report
Volume XVI, Issue 26
July 1, 2023
Manuel Farach
Abitron Austria GMBH v. Hetronic International, Inc., Case No. 21–1043 (2023).
15 U. S. C. §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and extend only to claims where the trademark infringement “use in commerce” is domestic.
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., Case No. 21–1168 (2023).
A state law that requires out-of-state companies to register to do business in the state and agree to appear in the courts of the state on “any cause of action” against them does not violate the Due Process Clause.
Tsuji v. Fleet, Case No. SC2021-1255 (Fla. 2023).
Florida Statute section 733.710(1) is a statute of repose that – with the exceptions of creditors who have filed claims or mortgages – extinguishes all claims against a decedent unless the claim was brought within two years.
Capallo v. Rivera, Case No. 2D22-1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023).
An easement which provides for “access” to a waterfront “basin” is ambiguous as to purpose and location, which ambiguity can be clarified through parol evidence.
Perry v. Turner, Case No. 2D22-119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023).
A party who has titled property in the hands of a co-conspirator to evade creditors is barred by the doctrines of unclean hands and in pari delicto from recovering the property from the co-conspirator, and in pari delicto applies even if the conduct was merely wrongful and not illegal.
Daniel’s Tree Service, Inc. v. Core Services Corp., Case 4D22-505 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).
In order to find that a liquidated damages clause is unenforceable, a trial court must determine whether damages in the event of breach were readily ascertainable at the time the parties executed the contract, and having determined same, whether the liquidated damages clause required the payment of damages grossly disproportionate to the damages reasonably expected to be caused by the breach.