BERNARD P. GOLDFARB, STEPHEN EPSTEIN AND GAIL EPSTEIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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 affirmed the trial court's denial of class action certification, holding that plaintiffs were estopped by the law of the case doctrine after previously arguing claims were separate in federal court, and no abuse of discretion was demonstrated.
Plaintiffs were estopped by the law of the case doctrine from seeking class certification after previously arguing in federal court that their claims were separate, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification.
[1] A party is estopped by the law of the case doctrine from urging that claims are common for class action purposes after previously arguing successfully that the claims wer…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sought class action designation in trial court after the matter had been removed to federal court by defendants and then remanded upon plai…
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 Certification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a non-final order denying a designation of a matter in the trial court as a class action. We affirm for two reasons. First, the plaintiff was estopped by the doctrine of the “law of the case” from now urging that the claims of the several plaintiffs and of the class, are common, having previously argued successfully before the local federal district court judge that they were separate.1 See and compare U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Columbia Cos. Co., 124 Fla. 633, 169 So. 532 (1936); Dickerson v. Shikany, 485 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Alford v. Summerlin, 423 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Second, no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated by the appellants, and without such, the trial court should be affirmed in denying the class certification. See and compare East Texas Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 S.Ct. 1891, 1896, 52 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977); Arrowsmith v. Broward County, 633 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Love v. General Dev. Corp., 555 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Adiel v. Electronic Fin. Sys., Inc., 513 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 418 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1983). Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the trial court order denying certification as a class action is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. After the matter had been removed to the federal court by the defendants it was remanded to the trial court upon motion of the plaintiffs which urged the separateness of the various claims.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1977)
- United States Gypsum Co. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 124 Fla. 633 (Fla. 1936)
- Webb v. White, 423 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Alford v. Summerlin, 423 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Rehavam Adiel and Rivka Rosenbaum v. Elec. Fin. Sys., Inc., 513 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Love v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 555 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 418 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Arrowsmith v. Broward Cnty., 633 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Albritton v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 485 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)