Florida Real Property and Business Law Update
Real Property and Business Litigation Report – Vol. IX, Issue 25
Cases of interest this week include:
Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, — S.Ct. —-, 2016 WL 3317564 (2016).
In determining whether to award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a copyright infringement lawsuit, the district court has discretion to grant fees so long as it does not grant fees as a matter of course and so long as it does not treat plaintiffs and defendants differently. A non-exclusive list of factors a court may consider in determining whether to award fees includes “frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness[,] and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.”
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., — S.Ct. —-, 2016 WL 3221515 (2016).
The test of In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F. 3d 1360, 1371, “objective recklessness” test for awarding attorney’s fees in patent infringement cases is rejected; there is “no precise rule or formula” for awarding damages under 35 U. S. C. §284 and a district court’s “‘discretion should be exercised in light of the considerations’ underlying the grant of that discretion.”
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions In Civil Cases-Report No. 15-01, Case No. SC15-1275 (Fla. 2106).
The Florida Supreme Court issues new instructions on duty to maintain evidence.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ousley, — So. 3d —-, 2016 WL 3268330 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
A foreclosure complaint filed with a copy of a note with an undated allonge containing a blank endorsement is sufficient to establish standing as a matter of law, regardless of whether there had been a formal assignment at time of suit. Likewise, a certified copy of a publicly recorded document (such as a mortgage) is self-authenticating and not subject to a challenge based on hearsay or lack of foundation.
Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Morton, — So. 3d —-, 2016 WL 3265485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
Whether a party has substantially complied with a condition precedent is a question of fact, but “a comparison of the text of a notice letter to the requirements of paragraph twenty-two will often be all that is necessary to enable a court to determine whether the lender substantially complied with its requirements.”
MMMG, LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, Inc., — So. 3d —-, 2016 WL 3265485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
Recognized Native American tribes enjoy sovereign immunity under United States law, and any waiver of that immunity must be in accordance with that tribe’s organizational documents.