MARCEL CASTIN AND CARL WESLEY, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, ET AL., APPELLEES; FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. DAVID MENDEZ AND LILLIAN MENDEZ, ET AL., 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.
The court affirmed class certification in the Mendez citrus canker case but affirmed denial of certification in the Castin case, holding that individual damages calculations for severance, fruit loss, and aesthetic values precluded class treatment.
Class certification is appropriate where common issues predominate, but denial of certification is proper when individual damages calculations regarding real property severance, fruit production, and aesthetic values require individualized proof unsuitable for class treatment.
[1] Class certification may be denied when damages calculations require individualized proof of real property severance, fruit production losses, and property-specific aesthe…
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 intelligenceProperty owners in Palm Beach County sought damages for citrus trees destroyed by the state's citrus canker eradication program. The Mendez plaintiffs…
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 Predominance Of Common Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These consolidated appeals are from non-final orders, one of which certified a class action and one of which denied certification of a class action. The plaintiffs in both cases seek damages for citrus trees destroyed by the citrus canker eradication program in Palm Beach County. We affirm the order certifying the class in the Mendez case (4D04-1738) for the same reasons we affirmed certification in Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. City of Pompano Beach, 829 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 845 So. 2d 889 (2003). See also Patchen v. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 30 Fla. L. Weekly S241, — So. 2d -, 2005 WL 856890 (Fla. Apr. 14, 2005).
We also affirm the denial of certification in the Castin case (4D04-846). The damages sought in Castin include severance damages to the real estate, damages for the fruit provided by the trees, as well as the shade, aroma, blossoms, and “other values for which people treasure citrus in Florida.” This would, as found by the trial court, require individual trials for each homeowner. We conclude, as we did in Execu-Tech Business Systems, Inc. v. Appleton Papers Inc., 743 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification, because the evidence showed no reasonable methodology for generalized proof suitable for a class action.
Affirmed.
POLEN, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Lopez-Brignoni, 114 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ar certification of the class.”); see also Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., 641 So. 2d 888, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“Entitlement to different amounts of damages is not fatal to a class action.”). Compare Castin v. Fla. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs., 901 So. 2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming denial of certification where damages sought included severance damages to real estate, the fruit provided by the trees, as well as the shade, aroma, blossoms, and “other values for which people treasure citrus i…1 / 2
-
Fla. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. & The Fla. Comm'r of Agric. v. Mendez, 126 So. 3d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…eclaratory judgment class action. The class consists of all homeowners in Palm Beach County whose trees were destroyed pursuant to the CCEP. This court affirmed certification of the class in Castin v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 901 So. 2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). In their request for declaratory judgment, the plaintiffs alleged a dispute between the Department and the plaintiffs as to the extent of the rulings of Haire and Patchen. Specifically, the Department claimed that these c…
-
Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Dellaselva, 926 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…o, we adopt the reasoning set forth in Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services v. City of Pompano Beach, 829 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), review denied, 845 So. 2d 889 (Fla.2003), and Castin v. Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, 901 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Affirmed. WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. City OF Pompano Beach, 829 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Whitaker v. State, 743 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Execu-Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Appleton Papers Inc., 743 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)