MICHAEL C. ADDISON AND RICHARD T. PETITT, FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL OTHER FLORIDA MUNICIPALITIES SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2010-04-07
No. 2D09-3574
Villanti, J., Whatley, J., Silberman, J.
31 So. 3d 304 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2010) Positive Treatment
Cited by 17 cases

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.

Synopsis

The court affirmed decertification of a defendant class in a suit challenging occupational license taxes on attorneys because dismissal of non-Hillsborough County defendants left insufficient numerosity for class certification.

Holding

A defendant class lacks the numerosity required for class certification when dismissal of non-resident defendants reduces the class to only four members.

Headnotes

[1] A defendant class fails to satisfy the numerosity requirement for class certification when venue dismissals reduce the class to four or fewer members.

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 intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Appellants challenged the constitutionality of occupational license taxes imposed by Florida municipalities on attorneys and sought to represent a cla…

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.

Topics
Numerosity Requirement Home Venue Privilege Venue Privilege Class Certification

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Numerosity Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
VILLANTI, Judge.

VILLANTI, Judge.

Michael C. Addison and Richard T. Pet-itt, for themselves and all others similarly situated (Appellants), appeal the trial court’s order that decertified the defendant class in this action concerning the constitutionality of imposing certain occupational license taxes on attorneys. This decertification order was based on an earlier ruling that had relied on the home venue privilege to dismiss all of the members of the defendant class that were not located in Hillsborough County. Appellants sought review of the trial court’s venue order in Addison v. City of Tampa.

In the pleadings filed in this case, Appellants conceded that if this court affirmed the dismissal of the non-Hillsborough County defendants in case number 2D09-1968, this court should also affirm the ruling decertifying the class in this case because a “class” of four defendants would be improper. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220(a)(1) (defining the “numerosity” requirement for class certification as arising when “the members of the class are so numerous that separate joinder of each member is impracticable”). In Addison v. City of Tampa,, No. 2D09-1968, — So.3d -, 2010 WL 1328939 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 7, 2010), this court affirmed the dismissal of the non-Hillsborough County defendant class members. Accordingly, we affirm the order decertifying the defendant class as well.

Affirmed.

WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

  • Suntrust Mortg. v. Torrenga, 153 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
    …against them. “Excusable neglect is found ‘where inaction results from clerical or secretarial error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system gone awry or any other of the foibles to which human nature is heir.’ ” Elliott v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 31 So. 3d 304, 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Somero v. Hendry Gen. Hasp., 467 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)). Courts have found excusable neglect where an attorney failed to act due to an incorrect assumption that opposing counsel would tell him when a…
  • Saint Luc Jean Noel v. James B. Nutter & Co., 232 So. 3d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
    …A 2007)). “Excusable neglect is found ‘where inaction results from clerical or secretarial error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system [*1116] gone awry or any other of the foibles to which human nature is heir.’” Elliott v. Aurora Loan Servs. LLC, 31 So. 3d 304, 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Somero v. Hendry Gen. Hosp., 467 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)). Where a failure to act is the result of clerical or secretarial error, excusable neglect is established under rule 1.540(b). See Ocwen Loan Se…
  • Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Timber Courtney Brogdon, 185 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
    …lts from clerical or secretarial error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system gone awry or any other of the foibles to which human nature is heir.” Bowers v. Allez, 165 So. 3d 710, 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Elliott v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 31 So. 3d 304, 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). Therefore, the “claim that a failure to appear due to a calendaring or clerical error is the type of ‘excusable neglect’ or ‘mistake’ that warrants relief under rule 1.540(b) is well-supported in Florida law.” Acosta v. De…

Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw