DAVID WILLIAMS, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
DADE COUNTY, ETC., APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the circuit court properly denied the motion to certify a class action because the plaintiff could not adequately represent the class.
Plaintiff, an investigator, sued Dade County on behalf of himself and other similarly situated investigators and attorneys. He alleged that although c…
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 Adequacy Of Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying the plaintiffs motion to certify him as the representative of a class. We have jurisdiction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(6).
The plaintiff, an investigator, sues Dade County for himself and others he claims are similarly situated. He alleges in substance that he and other investigators and attorneys were appointed by various criminal division judges of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit to perform services for indigent defendants, and while the circuit court entered orders in his and other class members’ favor for payment of amounts due, section 939.15, Florida Statutes (1991), the county thereafter “refused payment of them in whole or in part.” The county filed its answer and affirmative defenses. Appellant moved to certify the matter as a class action and the motion came on for plenary hearing.
We conclude that the circuit court properly declined to certify where, subsequent to an evidentiary hearing, it determined that the plaintiff could not adequately and fairly represent and protect all the intended representatives as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(e)(2)(C) and (D)(ii). See Frankel v. City of Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463, 465 (Fla.1976); Mathieson v. General Motors Corp., 529 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Wilson, 305 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. discharged, 327 So. 2d 220 (Fla.1976).
Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alomar v. Magna Props., Inc., 682 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…interests of each member of the class.” The trial court arrived at its conclusion based on facts reflected by the depositions of plaintiffs. We cannot say that the court erred in declining certification on that basis. See Williams v. Dade County, 625 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 984 (Fla.1994), and cases cited therein. See also Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 827 F. 2d 718, 728 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959, 108 S.Ct. 1220, 1221, 99 L.Ed.2d 421 (1988) (observing…
-
Alomar v. Magna Props., Inc., 705 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…r involvement in the case to fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the class. As in the prior appeal, appellants have failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in this factual determination. See Williams v. Dade County, 625 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and cases cited therein. Affirmed. STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER and KLEIN', JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Frankel v. City OF Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1976)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Wilson, 305 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Mathieson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 529 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Wilson v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 327 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1976)