VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC., A/A/O DIENIL CAMEJ

v.

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. | 2015-05-14

No. 2014-000151-AP-01

1 FLCA 4216 Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, Appellate Division (2015)

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

Virtual Imaging Services, a medical provider, sought certiorari review of a county court discovery order compelling disclosure of its reimbursement rate information from contracts with other insurers. The appellate court granted certiorari relief, finding the trial court failed to conduct the required in camera inspection to determine whether the information constituted trade secrets before ordering disclosure.

Holding

The appellate court held that the trial court committed a departure from the essential requirements of law by failing to conduct an in camera inspection and make clear findings of fact as to whether the requested information constituted trade secrets before ordering its disclosure. When trade secret privilege is asserted, courts must determine whether the requested production actually constitutes a trade secret, which typically requires in camera inspection, and must then require the requesting party to show reasonable necessity.

Headnotes

[1] A party seeking review of a discovery order by certiorari must demonstrate that the order is a departure from the essential requirements of law, that the harm caused is m…

[2] When a trade secret privilege is asserted as a basis for resisting production, the trial court must determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret,…

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“When the trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for resisting production, the trial court must determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret. In making such a determination, an in camera inspection of the materials is usually required.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement for handling trade secret claims in discovery disputes

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Virtual Imaging provided diagnostic testing services to Dienil Camejo, who assigned his PIP benefits under a policy with United Automobile Insurance C…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Opinion of the Court

This cause having been brought to this Court by appeal, and after due consideration the court having issued its opinion; YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that such further proceedings be had in said cause in accordance with the opinion of this COURT attached hereto and incorporated as part of this order, and with the rules of procedure and laws of the STATE OF FLORIDA. Lower Tribunal Case Number(s): 12-016436-SP 23 WITNESS the Honorable Abby Cynamon, Administrative Judge ofthe Appellate Division ofthe Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida and the seal ofthe said Circuit Court at Miami, this 3rd day of August, 2015. ‘ ih ll Cferkqﬂ ~ i at?» O x , _ we g liiiweliiie Abu-Nassar V De’ Clerk ' Mandate rev. 10/22/2008 ¥'t?§§'%’E*€“'ﬂﬂV lﬁiif

MANDATE

FROM CIRCUIT COURT

APPELLATE DIVISION

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

V -,- l' €J"8 _> Jt"

-'_ mi? (:3 -"v r E3? Pu) l-'-23 1:’ -~ vi *1; j <3") I111? APPELLATE CASE #:14-151AP ' ivco sfjlf ‘t’ 1:» "-1-0 ff: VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC, (1/(1/0 Dienil Camejg ~; I,» -~_ \. —4' ti 005%

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

MANDATE

FROM CIRCUIT COURT

APPELLATE DIVISION

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

V -,- l' €J"8 _> Jt"

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND, IF

THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

FILED, DISPOSED OF

IN

AND

FOR

MIAMI-DADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA

VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC.

a/a/o Dienil Camejo,

APPELLATE DIVISION

Petitioner, CASE NUIVIBER: 14-151 AP vs. LOWER COURT <

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CASENUMBER: 12-l6§_l36§P 23 COMPANY, =3 =2 '6‘ Respondent. -J; I -I?' _ YE-iI¹ T; ,-¢—.v an-s /"\I ~,.,~ M‘ ; .\\;' t...» Opinion ﬁled ex \'~\ , 2015 On common law certiorari review from the County Court in and for Miami- Dade County, Florida, Judge Myriam Lehr. Joseph Littman, Boca Raton, Florida, for Petitioner. Michael J. Neimand, United Automobile Insurance Company, Miami, Florida, for Respondent. Before SOTO, SCHLESINGER, and REBULL, JJ.

SCI-ILESINGER, J.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND, IF

THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

FILED, DISPOSED OF

IN

AND

FOR

MIAMI-DADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA

VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC.

a/a/o Dienil Camejo,

APPELLATE DIVISION

Petitioner, CASE NUIVIBER: 14-151 AP vs. LOWER COURT <

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SCI-ILESINGER, J.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND, IF

THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

FILED, DISPOSED OF

IN

AND

FOR

MIAMI-DADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA

VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC.

a/a/o Dienil Camejo,

APPELLATE DIVISION

Petitioner, CASE NUIVIBER: 14-151 AP vs. LOWER COURT <

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SCI-ILESINGER, J.

I Petitioner Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., a/a/o Dienil Camejo (“Virtual Irnaging”) petitions this court for certiorari relief from the county court’s March 31, 2014 “Order on Plaintiffs Objection to Defendant’s Interrogatories 2, 3 and 5” overruling the medical provider’s objection to certain discovery requests. ..,;,,~.;.i~u.::~;s».>a ieﬂﬂmm [*3] As alleged in the underlying personal injury protection (“PIP”) litigation, Virtual Imaging provided diagnostic testing services to Dienil Camejo, relating to injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Camejo in turn assigned his PIP beneﬁts under his policy with Respondent ‘United Automobile Insurance Company (“United”). Litigation eventually ensued regarding the payment of claims under the policy, during Which, United propounded interrogatories requesting that Virtual Imaging provide its reimbursement rate information for other insurers. Virtual Imaging objected asserting that the request was overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. At a March 31, 2014 hearing, Virtual Imaging further objected to the disclosure of the HMO and PPO rate information because the contracts contained conﬁdential provisions which prohibited the disclosure of the contract terms and rates included therein. Therefore, an order compelling the disclosure of the confidential information would violate the terms of the agreement. Lastly, Virtual Imaging asserted that production of the materials violated the conﬁdentiality of its trade secrets and required the production of conﬁdential business information. The county court overruled Virtual Imaging’s objeetion, ﬁnding the payment information was relevant to the determination ofthe reasonableness issue in the case pursuant to section 627.736(5)(a)(l), Florida Statutes. However, the trial court limited the discovery to 20ll for each insurance provider and ruled that Virtual As alleged in the underlying personal injury protection (“PIP”) litigation, Virtual Imaging provided diagnostic testing services to Dienil Camejo, relating to injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Camejo in turn assigned his PIP beneﬁts under his policy with Respondent ‘United Automobile Insurance Company (“United”). Litigation eventually ensued regarding the payment of claims under the policy, during Which, United propounded interrogatories requesting that Virtual Imaging provide its reimbursement rate information for other insurers. Virtual Imaging objected asserting that the request was overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. At a March 31, 2014 hearing, Virtual Imaging further objected to the disclosure of the HMO and PPO rate information because the contracts contained conﬁdential provisions which prohibited the disclosure of the contract terms and rates included therein. Therefore, an order compelling the disclosure of the confidential information would violate the terms of the agreement. Lastly, Virtual Imaging asserted that production of the materials violated the conﬁdentiality of its trade secrets and required the production of conﬁdential business information. The county court overruled Virtual Imaging’s objeetion, ﬁnding the payment information was relevant to the determination ofthe reasonableness issue in the case pursuant to section 627.736(5)(a)(l), Florida Statutes. However, the trial court limited the discovery to 20ll for each insurance provider and ruled that Virtual As alleged in the underlying personal injury protection (“PIP”) litigation, Virtual Imaging provided diagnostic testing services to Dienil Camejo, relating to injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Camejo in turn assigned his PIP beneﬁts under his policy with Respondent ‘United Automobile Insurance Company (“United”). Litigation eventually ensued regarding the payment of claims under the policy, during Which, United propounded interrogatories requesting that Virtual Imaging provide its reimbursement rate information for other insurers. Virtual Imaging objected asserting that the request was overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. At a March 31, 2014 hearing, Virtual Imaging further objected to the disclosure of the HMO and PPO rate information because the contracts contained conﬁdential provisions which prohibited the disclosure of the contract terms and rates included therein. Therefore, an order compelling the disclosure of the confidential information would violate the terms of the agreement. Lastly, Virtual Imaging asserted that production of the materials violated the conﬁdentiality of its trade secrets and required the production of conﬁdential business information. The county court overruled Virtual Imaging’s objeetion, ﬁnding the payment information was relevant to the determination ofthe reasonableness issue in the case pursuant to section 627.736(5)(a)(l), Florida Statutes. However, the trial court limited the discovery to 20ll for each insurance provider and ruled that Virtual [*4] Imaging was permitted to omit the names ofthe providers and could simply identify the providers by number and type of carrier {e.g., I-IMO#1) “to avoid the potential for disclosure of any trade secret or proprietary information.” Accordingly, the petitioner ﬁled the instant petition on April 30, 2014. A party seeking review of a discovery order by certiorari must demonstrate: (1) that the order is a departure from the essential requirements of the law; (2) that the harm caused by the error is material through subsequent proceedings; and (3) that the harm cannot be corrected on appeal from the ﬁnal judgment in the case. Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. v. Total Health Choice. Inc., 770 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). In the instant petition, Virtual Imaging alleges that the trial court’s order compelling the disclosure of conﬁdential and trade secret information pertaining to its contracts is a departure from the essential requirements of the law for the following reasons: (l) the lower court failed to Weigh United’s alleged need for the documents against the privacy rights of Virtual Imaging and (2) the county court erred in ordering the disclosure of the conﬁdential information without ﬁrst conducting an in camera review to determine Whether the asserted privilege was valid. We ﬁnd Virtual lmaging’s second argument dispositive. Trade secrets are privileged from disclosure by section 90.506, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: Imaging was permitted to omit the names ofthe providers and could simply identify the providers by number and type of carrier {e.g., I-IMO#1) “to avoid the potential for disclosure of any trade secret or proprietary information.” Accordingly, the petitioner ﬁled the instant petition on April 30, 2014. A party seeking review of a discovery order by certiorari must demonstrate: (1) that the order is a departure from the essential requirements of the law; (2) that the harm caused by the error is material through subsequent proceedings; and (3) that the harm cannot be corrected on appeal from the ﬁnal judgment in the case. Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. v. Total Health Choice. Inc., 770 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). In the instant petition, Virtual Imaging alleges that the trial court’s order compelling the disclosure of conﬁdential and trade secret information pertaining to its contracts is a departure from the essential requirements of the law for the following reasons: (l) the lower court failed to Weigh United’s alleged need for the documents against the privacy rights of Virtual Imaging and (2) the county court erred in ordering the disclosure of the conﬁdential information without ﬁrst conducting an in camera review to determine Whether the asserted privilege was valid. We ﬁnd Virtual lmaging’s second argument dispositive. Trade secrets are privileged from disclosure by section 90.506, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: Imaging was permitted to omit the names ofthe providers and could simply identify the providers by number and type of carrier {e.g., I-IMO#1) “to avoid the potential for disclosure of any trade secret or proprietary information.” Accordingly, the petitioner ﬁled the instant petition on April 30, 2014. A party seeking review of a discovery order by certiorari must demonstrate: (1) that the order is a departure from the essential requirements of the law; (2) that the harm caused by the error is material through subsequent proceedings; and (3) that the harm cannot be corrected on appeal from the ﬁnal judgment in the case. Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. v. Total Health Choice. Inc., 770 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). In the instant petition, Virtual Imaging alleges that the trial court’s order compelling the disclosure of conﬁdential and trade secret information pertaining to its contracts is a departure from the essential requirements of the law for the following reasons: (l) the lower court failed to Weigh United’s alleged need for the documents against the privacy rights of Virtual Imaging and (2) the county court erred in ordering the disclosure of the conﬁdential information without ﬁrst conducting an in camera review to determine Whether the asserted privilege was valid. We ﬁnd Virtual lmaging’s second argument dispositive. Trade secrets are privileged from disclosure by section 90.506, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: [*5] A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent other persons from disclosing, a trade secret owned by that person if the allowance of the privilege will not conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When the court directs disclosure, it shall take the protective measures that the interests ofthe holder ofthe privilege, the interests of the parties, and the furtherance ofjustice require. Further, pursuant to Rule l.280(c)(7), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, upon motion by a party from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the trial court may order that a trade secret “not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way.” “When the trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for resisting production, the trial court must determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret.” Sheridan Healthcorp, 770 So. 2d at 222. In making such a determination, an in camera inspection of the materials is usually required. Q14 If the trial court determines that the request constitutes a trade secret, “the court must require the party seeking production to show reasonable necessity for the requested materials.” lgl_. The trial court must then set forth its ﬁndings ifproduction is ordered. Id. In this case, the county court overruled Virtual Imaging’s objection, but limited the discovery to 2011 and ruled that Virtual Imaging was permitted to omit the names ofthe providers and could anonymously identify the carriers “to avoid the potential for disclosure of any trade secret or proprietary information.” The county A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent other persons from disclosing, a trade secret owned by that person if the allowance of the privilege will not conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When the court directs disclosure, it shall take the protective measures that the interests ofthe holder ofthe privilege, the interests of the parties, and the furtherance ofjustice require. Further, pursuant to Rule l.280(c)(7), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, upon motion by a party from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the trial court may order that a trade secret “not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way.” “When the trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for resisting production, the trial court must determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret.” Sheridan Healthcorp, 770 So. 2d at 222. In making such a determination, an in camera inspection of the materials is usually required. Q14 If the trial court determines that the request constitutes a trade secret, “the court must require the party seeking production to show reasonable necessity for the requested materials.” lgl_. The trial court must then set forth its ﬁndings ifproduction is ordered. Id. In this case, the county court overruled Virtual Imaging’s objection, but limited the discovery to 2011 and ruled that Virtual Imaging was permitted to omit the names ofthe providers and could anonymously identify the carriers “to avoid the potential for disclosure of any trade secret or proprietary information.” The county A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent other persons from disclosing, a trade secret owned by that person if the allowance of the privilege will not conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When the court directs disclosure, it shall take the protective measures that the interests ofthe holder ofthe privilege, the interests of the parties, and the furtherance ofjustice require. Further, pursuant to Rule l.280(c)(7), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, upon motion by a party from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the trial court may order that a trade secret “not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way.” “When the trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for resisting production, the trial court must determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret.” Sheridan Healthcorp, 770 So. 2d at 222. In making such a determination, an in camera inspection of the materials is usually required. Q14 If the trial court determines that the request constitutes a trade secret, “the court must require the party seeking production to show reasonable necessity for the requested materials.” lgl_. The trial court must then set forth its ﬁndings ifproduction is ordered. Id. In this case, the county court overruled Virtual Imaging’s objection, but limited the discovery to 2011 and ruled that Virtual Imaging was permitted to omit the names ofthe providers and could anonymously identify the carriers “to avoid the potential for disclosure of any trade secret or proprietary information.” The county [*6] court nonetheless failed to make any clear ﬁndings as to whether the requested information indeed constituted trade secrets and failed to conduct an in camera inspection to make the required determination. In this respect, the order directing the production ofthe information constituted a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Accordingly, we grant certiorari relief and remand to the county court to conduct an in camera inspection and to make ﬁndings of fact to determine whether the requested information constitutes trade secrets. SOTO and REBULL,¹]., concur. £3 .JO s’cnLEsn\icEVL l.BERTILA soro I I /*’“"

HON. THOMAS J. REBULL

a ‘if‘ﬁr .. weeaa saris ‘rife rears’ @lﬁTRﬁE?RESEitiTEE E»? CQEJEQSEL court nonetheless failed to make any clear ﬁndings as to whether the requested information indeed constituted trade secrets and failed to conduct an in camera inspection to make the required determination. In this respect, the order directing the production ofthe information constituted a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Accordingly, we grant certiorari relief and remand to the county court to conduct an in camera inspection and to make ﬁndings of fact to determine whether the requested information constitutes trade secrets. SOTO and REBULL,¹]., concur. £3 .JO s’cnLEsn\icEVL l.BERTILA soro I I /*’“"

HON. THOMAS J. REBULL

a ‘if‘ﬁr .. weeaa saris ‘rife rears’ @lﬁTRﬁE?RESEitiTEE E»? CQEJEQSEL [*7] IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA. APPELLATE DIVISION

CASE NUMBER: 14451 AP LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC, a/a/o Dienil Camejo, Petitioner, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. I Petitioner‘s Motion for Appellate Attorneys Fees is hereby: Granted. The case is remanded to the low [ ] Denied.

BER

, w SOTO, JOI-IN SCHLESINGER, and THOMAS J REBULL, JJ CONCUR. JUD THOMAS J REBULL I orderedthis day of M/,,, 20 J §- . I I /\-/ ‘ V UE BERTILA soro I I

JUDGE

N ' cnnsmosa CC: JOSEPH LITTI\/IAN, ESQ. MICHAEL) NEIMAND, ESQ. 4800 N FEDERAL HIGHW BOCA RATON, FL 33431 Order Mtn For Atty Fees rev. l0/23/2008 AY, SUITE 101E

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

P.O. BOX 694250 MIAMI, FL 33269 12-016 ‘A Kai‘!-‘I'D ‘ii 5 ‘- Ema?‘ I3’ FD WM 113 cs¹: ,1: E, 2: .~. ;.. “I < .2 -E; 7* 1.: 1' 436- BZ -NIII" El I3 "¹ Nd SP 23 ‘ls ,.._. Uzi

LEI

* * * * *

V . .

er court to detemiine the amount of a reasonable fee. -» Ifaifagc =:a.lisEl 41>

L.

* * * * *

Footnotes

1 [*8] O VIRTUAL IMAGING SER . . m .0, VICES, INC., a/a/o Dienil Ca e] Petitioner, VS. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. consideration by the cou b ’ ’~~\fY LI f-e t I I S ' , /-"’* A 0 . ,. HE ELEVENTH E IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF T CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DAD JUDICIAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. APPELLATE DIVISION CASE NO.: 14-151 AP LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-016436,-SP 23 1’ ,3, ;... 12%;‘: HIV9/7/rs/oz <::,.._ =7‘) "1 .»'~" -. 9 _;_~ I: "5"‘ ”‘¢a is KJ >-C ,7 vs L. Iﬁ./ nt’s Motion for Rehearing as to the June 1, 2015 Orde rt, Responde I (3 1:? is-._. r~._ \_ff}_-;' '~93-9;‘ AN ’].-./I Granting Upon for Attorney’s Fees is here y: /at ta A/re A"/’ Kw cw“ Qpwfk LMI/£7 v A L Petitioner’s Motion “ r uo/ f;l”{ }Q“V ' ' i "Te t..';**Ti"""F K T" i I . Granted 4 W77‘ ‘Z W 6 . ,.»...=/*» L L 7"’ K ,./1....»- /r uiﬁ M '~ F€,Lai bI7,n1x,~ I t ;"”€-. i~A gym‘) ->.I"‘. ‘P3. !‘.‘\~. ~+_.O... T,E ‘P-. P“: lo (’r::*~/1? I '”/I M‘ =.=*‘,.I TI II/L It /" /I‘ i;L’”L.'}" MIYXTI I In g I 'I'“‘§l~ 9': W. * * * * * I I NCUR ULL , JJ CO nd THOMAS J REB BERTILA SOTO, JOHFE SE%[_{i§§INGER, 3. I oordered this day of -A £3 ‘-7 , 2o I HLEINGER I ":11 l . K f i,<./"iv ‘ J REBULL Ju TH ESQ Order MICHAEL] NEIMAND, . THE GENERAL COUNSEL OFFICE OF ” CC: JOSEPH LITTMAN, ESQ. FEDERAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 1o1E P.O. BOX 091,2 MIAMI, FL 33269 48oo N 9N, FL 33431 BOCA RAT Grt/Den Mtn. rev. l0/30/2008 O VIRTUAL IMAGING SER . . m .0, VICES, INC., a/a/o Dienil Ca e] Petitioner, VS. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. consideration by the cou b ’ ’~~\fY LI f-e t I I S ' , /-"’* A 0 . ,. HE ELEVENTH E IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF T CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DAD JUDICIAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. APPELLATE DIVISION CASE NO.: 14-151 AP LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-016436,-SP 23 1’ ,3, ;... 12%;‘: HIV9/7/rs/oz <::,.._ =7‘) "1 .»'~" -. 9 _;_~ I: "5"‘ ”‘¢a is KJ >-C ,7 vs L. Iﬁ./ nt’s Motion for Rehearing as to the June 1, 2015 Orde rt, Responde I (3 1:? is-._. r~._ \_ff}_-;' '~93-9;‘ AN ’].-./I Granting Upon for Attorney’s Fees is here y: /at ta A/re A"/’ Kw cw“ Qpwfk LMI/£7 v A L Petitioner’s Motion “ r uo/ f;l”{ }Q“V ' ' i "Te t..';**Ti"""F K T" i I . Granted 4 W77‘ ‘Z W 6 . ,.»...=/*» L L 7"’ K ,./1....»- /r uiﬁ M '~ F€,Lai bI7,n1x,~ I t ;"”€-. i~A gym‘) ->.I"‘. ‘P3. !‘.‘\~. ~+_.O... T,E ‘P-. P“: lo (’r::*~/1? I '”/I M‘ =.=*‘,.I TI II/L It /" /I‘ i;L’”L.'}" MIYXTI I In g I 'I'“‘§l~ 9': W. * * * * * I I NCUR ULL , JJ CO nd THOMAS J REB BERTILA SOTO, JOHFE SE%[_{i§§INGER, 3. I oordered this day of -A £3 ‘-7 , 2o I HLEINGER I ":11 l . K f i,<./"iv ‘ J REBULL Ju TH ESQ Order MICHAEL] NEIMAND, . THE GENERAL COUNSEL OFFICE OF ” CC: JOSEPH LITTMAN, ESQ. FEDERAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 1o1E P.O. BOX 091,2 MIAMI, FL 33269 48oo N 9N, FL 33431 BOCA RAT Grt/Den Mtn. rev. l0/30/2008 O VIRTUAL IMAGING SER . . m .0, VICES, INC., a/a/o Dienil Ca e] Petitioner, VS. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. consideration by the cou b ’ ’~~\fY LI f-e t I I S ' , /-"’* A 0 . ,. HE ELEVENTH E IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF T CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DAD JUDICIAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. APPELLATE DIVISION CASE NO.: 14-151 AP LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-016436,-SP 23 1’ ,3, ;... 12%;‘: HIV9/7/rs/oz <::,.._ =7‘) "1 .»'~" -. 9 _;_~ I: "5"‘ ”‘¢a is KJ >-C ,7 vs L. Iﬁ./ nt’s Motion for Rehearing as to the June 1, 2015 Orde rt, Responde I (3 1:? is-._. r~._ \_ff}_-;' '~93-9;‘ AN ’].-./I Granting Upon for Attorney’s Fees is here y: /at ta A/re A"/’ Kw cw“ Qpwfk LMI/£7 v A L Petitioner’s Motion “ r uo/ f;l”{ }Q“V ' ' i "Te t..';**Ti"""F K T" i I . Granted 4 W77‘ ‘Z W 6 . ,.»...=/*» L L 7"’ K ,./1....»- /r uiﬁ M '~ F€,Lai bI7,n1x,~ I t ;"”€-. i~A gym‘) ->.I"‘. ‘P3. !‘.‘\~. ~+_.O... T,E ‘P-. P“: lo (’r::*~/1? I '”/I M‘ =.=*‘,.I TI II/L It /" /I‘ i;L’”L.'}" MIYXTI I In g I 'I'“‘§l~ 9': W. * * * * * I I NCUR ULL , JJ CO nd THOMAS J REB BERTILA SOTO, JOHFE SE%[_{i§§INGER, 3. I oordered this day of -A £3 ‘-7 , 2o I HLEINGER I ":11 l . K f i,<./"iv ‘ J REBULL Ju TH ESQ Order MICHAEL] NEIMAND, . THE GENERAL COUNSEL OFFICE OF ” CC: JOSEPH LITTMAN, ESQ. FEDERAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 1o1E P.O. BOX 091,2 MIAMI, FL 33269 48oo N 9N, FL 33431 BOCA RAT Grt/Den Mtn. rev. l0/30/2008

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. v. Total Health Choice, Inc., 770 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC., A/A/O DIENIL CAMEJ v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

MANDATE

FROM CIRCUIT COURT

APPELLATE DIVISION

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

MANDATE

FROM CIRCUIT COURT

APPELLATE DIVISION

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND, IF

FILED, DISPOSED OF

IN

AND

FOR

MIAMI-DADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA

VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC.

APPELLATE DIVISION

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SCI-ILESINGER, J.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND, IF

FILED, DISPOSED OF

IN

AND

FOR

MIAMI-DADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA

VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC.

APPELLATE DIVISION

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SCI-ILESINGER, J.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND, IF

FILED, DISPOSED OF

IN

AND

FOR

MIAMI-DADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA

VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC.

APPELLATE DIVISION

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SCI-ILESINGER, J.

HON. THOMAS J. REBULL

HON. THOMAS J. REBULL

HON. THOMAS J. REBULL

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA. APPELLATE DIVISION

BER

JUDGE

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

LEI

V . .

L.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC., A/A/O DIENIL CAMEJ

v.

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY