CHARLES R. POWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
RIVER RANCH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AND WILLIAM J. PAGE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Powell sought to maintain a class action on behalf of 3,200 absentee landowners in River Ranch Acres against a property owners association that allegedly fenced the property and restricted access to non-members. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the class action counts, holding that the allegations satisfied the prerequisites for class certification under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220.
Taking the appellant's allegations as true, the court held that the allegations satisfied the prerequisites for maintaining a class action under Florida Rule 1.220. Variations in factual details among class members do not preclude class certification if the representative's claim arises from the same practice or course of conduct and is based on the same legal theory.
[1] A class action may be maintained even if the factual context of a representative's claim varies somewhat from that of other class members.
[2] The primary concern in determining commonality and typicality for class certification is whether the representative's claim arises from the same practice or course of con…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Federal Rule 23 and, by analogy, Florida Rule 1.220, do not require that class certification be denied merely because the claim of one or more class representatives arises in a factual context that varies somewhat from that of other plaintiffs.”
Establishes the legal standard that variations in factual circumstances do not automatically defeat class certification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePowell alleged he represented approximately 3,200 absentee property owners in an unrecorded 55,000-acre subdivision in Polk County known as River Ranc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Class Action Prerequisites cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The appellant, Charles R. Powell, seeks review of an order of the circuit court dismissing with prejudice the class action counts of his amended complaint.
The appellant contends that the allegations of his amended complaint if taken as true are sufficient to establish the elements necessary under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220 to maintain a class action. We agree.
Powell alleges that he represents a group of 3200 absentee land owners who own property within an unrecorded subdivision in Polk County, consisting of approximately 55,000 acres. The subject property is known as River Ranch Acres. Powell alleges that the appellee, River Ranch Property Owners Association, consisting of 4000 members, is basically a hunt club open to membership of any property owner of River Ranch Acres and that the appellee has fenced the property, thereby limiting its use to the club members, allowing trespass upon nonmembers’ property and denying access to property owners unless they are members of the association.
The appellee contends that a class action suit cannot properly be maintained because the facts involved in each land owner’s claim vary with regard to each parcel of property.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220 sets forth the prerequisites for maintenance of a class action. That rule was completely revised in 1980 to bring it in line with modern practice and is based on Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We follow the federal construction and application where appropriate. Lingelbach’s Bavarian Restaurants, Inc. v. Del Bello, 467 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 476 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1985).
Federal Rule 23 and, by analogy, Florida Rule 1.220, do not require that class certification be denied merely because the claim of one or more class representatives arises in a factual context that varies somewhat from that of other plaintiffs. Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F. 2d 1546 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 274, 93 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986). The court’s primary concern in considering the typicality and commonality of claims should be whether the representative’s claim arises from the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the remaining claims and whether the claims are based on the same legal theory. Morgan v. Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California, 81 F.R.D. 669 (N.D.Cal.1979); Donaldson v. Pillsbury Co., 554 F. 2d 825 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 856, 98 S.Ct. 177, 54 L.Ed.2d 128 (1977).
If we take as true the appellant’s allegations in his amended complaint, as the trial judge is required to do, we find that those allegations satisfy the prerequisites for maintaining a class action. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice, and we remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 2011)…entative’s claim arises from the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the remaining claims and whether the claims are based on the same legal theory. See Morgan, 33 So. 3d at 64 (citing Powell v. River Ranch Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 522 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)). The threshold of the commonality requirement is not high. See Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citing Jenkins v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 782 F. 2d 468, 473 (5th Cir.1986)). A mere fac…
-
Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…le 1.220 does not require denial of class certification “merely because the claim of one or more class representative arises in a factual context that varies somewhat from that of other plaintiffs.” Powell v. River Ranch Property Owners Ass’n, Inc., 522 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988); Pottinger, 720 F.Supp. at 958. The class in this case meets the threshold. The complaint sufficiently alleges common questions of law and fact. A class suit is maintainable where the su…1 / 2
-
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Sys. I, Ltd., 694 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ative has successfully established that it has a common claim that “arises from the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the remaining claims and ... based on the same legal theory.” Powell v. River Ranch Property Owners Ass’n, Inc., 522 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988). As this court held in Broin, application of different statutes of limitations, or entitlement to different amounts of damages is not fatal to a class action. Broin, 641 So. 2d at 891. “C…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- COX v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1986)
- Marceline M. Donaldson and others similarly situated v. The Pillsbury Co., 554 F.2d 825 (8th Cir. 1977)
- Tonti v. Tonti, 434 U.S. 856 (U.S. 1977)
- Chleborad v. Charter, 434 U.S. 856 (U.S. 1977)
- Lingelbach's Bavarian Rests., Inc. v. del Bello, 467 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)