HOLMES
v.
CITY OF PALM BAY
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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny a motion to certify a class action. The court found that the appellant failed to meet the typicality and predominance requirements for class certification, and was not an adequate representative.
No, the trial court did not err. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the class certification motion, finding that Holmes failed to establish the typicality and predominance elements, and was not an adequate class representative.
[1] A plaintiff seeking class certification must establish the typicality element under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a).
[2] A plaintiff seeking class certification must establish the predominance element under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b)(3).
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We affirm the trial court’s order determining that Holmes failed to establish the typicality and predominance elements required under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a) and 1.220(b)(3), respectively.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's agreement with the trial court's findings regarding the failure to meet key class certification requirements.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrenda Holmes sought to certify a class action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The trial court denied her motion to certify the cl…
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 Ready, Willing, And Able Purchaser cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED BRENDA J. HOLMES, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D16-2993 CITY OF PALM BAY AND GATSO USA, INC., Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed June 15, 2018 Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, John M. Harris, Judge. David M. Kerner and Jason D. Weisser, of Schuler, Halvorson, Weisser, Zoeller & Overbeck, P.A., and Andrew A. Harris, of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant. Robert Alden Swift, Christina Bredahl Gierke and Christine A. Wasula, of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee Gatso USA, Inc. Erin J. O’Leary and Scott Danahy, of Garganese, Weiss & D’Agresta, P.A., Orlando, and Andrew P. Lannon, Patricia D. Smith, Peter J. Sweeney, Jr., Jill E. Jacobs, and Wendy L. Fisher, of Office of the City Attorney City of Palm Bay, Palm Bay, for Appellee City of Palm Bay. PER CURIAM. Brenda Holmes appeals a non-final order denying her motion to certify the class. We affirm the trial court’s order determining that Holmes failed to establish the typicality and predominance elements required under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a) and 1.220(b)(3), respectively. See Easter v. City of Orlando, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1306 (Fla. 5th DCA June 8, 2018). We further conclude that there was no error in the trial court’s determination that Holmes failed to establish that she would be an adequate class representative.
AFFIRMED.
EVANDER, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.