Florida Real Property and Business Litigation Report
Volume XVIII, Issue 5
February 1, 2025
Manuel Farach
Mishiyev v. Davis, Case No. 2D2023-1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).
https://2dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2446618/opinion/Opinion_2023-1242.pdf
The Second District re-affirms the anti-SLAPP statute creates a burden on plaintiffs to allege sufficient facts to bring the claim within the statute and that its position is in conflict with the Third District, and that statements not made on social media or radio broadcasts and may not be protected under the statute.
940 Ocean Drive, LLC v. Sobe USA, LLC, Case Nos. 3D22-1323 & 3D22-2238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2446492/opinion/Opinion_2022-1323.pdf
Florida Statute section 678.725 (burden of proof on punitive damages) requires a trial on punitive damages even if the defendant has been defaulted.
Contragolpe LLC v. 505 NE 30 Street, LLC, Case No. 3D23-1487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2446498/opinion/Opinion_2023-1487.pdf
The use of the term “this contract” in an addendum as opposed to using the defined term “this Contract” creates a patent ambiguity, and parol evidence regarding patent ambiguities is admissible only to clarify issues regarding the “identity, capacity, or the parties’ relationship with one another.”