ROLLINS, INC., AND ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARK BUTLAND AND CHRISTINE BUTLAND, KRIS CORNETT, AND MARIA N. GARCIA, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 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.
Rollins, Inc. and Orkin Exterminating Company appealed a trial court order certifying a class action brought by consumers alleging fraud, theft, and forgery. The appellate court reversed because the trial court's certification order lacked the required factual and legal findings to support class certification under Florida law.
The court reversed the class certification order because the trial court's twelve-page order contained only conclusory statements that the class certification prerequisites were met, rather than the required factual and legal findings. The appellate court could not determine whether the trial court abused its discretion due to the inadequacy of the order's legal and factual support.
[1] A trial court's order granting class certification must contain factual and legal findings sufficient to support the certification, not merely conclusory statements.
[2] An appellate court may reverse an order granting class certification if the order fails to articulate the specific factual and legal findings required by rule.
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“the order did not state the factual and legal findings required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(d)(1) to support certification but merely made conclusory statements that the parties had established the prerequisites to qualify for class certification”
Establishes the primary deficiency in the trial court's order that warranted reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRollins, Inc. operates several divisions and subsidiaries, including Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., a licensed termite and pest control company. Plain…
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 Certification Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Rollins, Inc., is a nationwide corporation which operates several divisions and subsidiaries including the licensed termite and pest control company, Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. The subject of the current appeal is a nonfinal order which granted a motion for class certification filed by the plaintiffs, Mark Butland, Christine But-land, Kris Cornett, and Maria N. Garcia. We reverse.
The plaintiffs brought an action against Rollins and Orkin alleging the companies were guilty of a continuing pattern of fraud, theft, and forgery upon Florida consumers. In preliminary proceedings, the plaintiffs proposed the certification of a class and one subclass. The “Orkin Termite Class” was defined as: “Ail persons who have entered into a Standard Termite Contract during the period from March 9, 1995 to the present.” The “Orkin RICO Subclass” was defined as: “All persons who were induced to and entered into a Standard Termite Contract with Orkin similar to the Plaintiffs based on Orkin’s misleading advertisements and representations that violate Florida Statutes, sections 772.104, 817.06, and 817.41.”
The trial court issued a twelve-page order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for statewide class certification which clearly summarized the argument of the parties relating to the requirements which must be met in order to certify a class. However, the order did not state the factual and legal findings required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(d)(1) to support certification but merely made conclusory statements that the parties had established the prerequisites to qualify for class certification. As in KPMG Peat Marwick, L.L.P. v. Barner, 771 So. 2d 56, 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), due to the inadequacy of the order, this court cannot determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by certifying the class. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting the motion for class certification and remand for further proceedings.1
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., Concur. . On remand, in addition to making sufficient findings of fact to support the certification and the establishment of the class and subclass, we recommend that the trial court specifically set out the manner in which this matter should proceed for case management purposes. Specifically, the court should address how the parties shall proceed with discovery and with the continuing litigation of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…e of class certification. We reversed an earlier order granting class certification and re [*867] manded for further proceedings because the order did not contain the factual and legal findings required by rule 1.220(d)(1). Rollins, Inc. v. Rutland, 852 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). On remand, the circuit court conducted a three-day hearing on the class certification issue. After the hearing, the circuit court entered the class certification order under review and a separate case management order. The class…
-
City OF Tampa v. McAFEE, 896 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…court has made it clear that it will not accept conclusory findings in an order granting class certification. See Ernie Havre Ford, Inc. v. Moira Gilley, — So. 2d -, 2004 WL 3192624, No. 2D04-109 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb.18, 2005); Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 852 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). It seems likely that this ordinance has affected a large enough group of people to establish numerosity. As to the facial validity of the ordinance, Mr. McAfee would seem to be an adequate representative. But once the case reach…
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Morris, 904 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…tely state the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the determination is based.”). Absent specific findings, we cannot discern whether the trial court applied the correct analysis when making its decision. See Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 852 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); KPMG Peat Marwick, L.L.P. v. Barner, 771 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We therefore reverse the order granting the motion for class certification, decertify the proposed class, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opin…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- KPMG Peat Marwick, L.L.P. v. Barner, 771 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)