S.D.S. AUTOS, INC., D/B/A LEXUS OF JACKSONVILLE ("LEXUS"), APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCIS A. CHRZANOWSKI, KIMBERLY M. CHRZANOWSKI, ALFRED G. JONAS, HAROLD GREGORY FORREST AND RITA B. FORREST, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLEES; BRUMOS MOTOR CARS, INC. ("BRUMOS"), APPELLANT, V. CAROLYN C. MONTGOMERY, CLEOPHUS M. HOWELL, ALFRED G. JONAS AND HEIDI H. JONAS, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fdutpa) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this non-final appeal, appellants seek reversal of the trial court’s certification under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b)(2) and (b)(8) of two classes of consumers claiming violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), section 501.201 et seq., Florida Statutes (2005). The trial court entered two certification orders in separate cases involving substantially identical operative facts, which appellants separately appealed. The appeals have been consolidated.
Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to certify the classes, we affirm the certification orders. See Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So. 2d 971, 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that, in a class action for damages under FDUTPA, class certification does not require proof of each individual putative class member’s actual reliance on an alleged deceptive act because an actionable deceptive trade practice is one which is “likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same circumstances,” not one upon which any individual plaintiff “actually relied”).
Affirmed.
BARFIELD, WOLF, and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gary v. State, 987 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…t find Gary at home when she visited did not prove that Gary had moved. The State’s only other evidence was the hearsay statement attributed to Gary’s daughter. This, standing alone, was insufficient to support the revocation. See Crawford v. State, 982 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (stating that hearsay testimony from probationer’s sister that he was no longer living with her at his approved residence was legally insufficient to support a revocation). Moreover, the State had the opportunity to present testim…
-
E.J. v. State, 29 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…Dade Marine Institute. E.J.’s probation officer additionally testified that ac [*351] cording to E.J.’s mother, E.J. violated his curfew on four occasions. Because E.J.’s remaining violations were not based solely on hearsay, see Crawford v. State, 982 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversing the trial court’s order finding the defendant in violation of his probation based solely on hearsay testimony), and these violations were proven by a preponderance of the evidence, we affirm the findings by the trial…
-
Robinson v. State, 23 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…son’s probation but remand with instructions to strike the findings that the defendant violated his probation by committing perjury in an unofficial proceeding and by failing to pay the costs of his suspension and court costs. See Crawford v. State, 982 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Rojas v. State, 484 So. 2d 629, 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Affirmed, but remanded with, instructions to enter a corrected order.…
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
- LEE v. State, 776 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)