GARY B. CROUCH
v.
BRIANA BRUMER
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.
Gary Crouch appeals a post-judgment order denying his motions to impose sanctions against Brumer and others for allegedly violating a confidentiality agreement by filing certain documents. The trial court ruled that filing documents into a sealed court record did not violate the confidentiality agreement's restrictions on disclosure. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.
The court held that filing documents into a sealed court record does not violate a confidentiality agreement that restricts access to those documents as "attorney's eyes only." The trial court's denial of sanctions was affirmed as within its discretion.
[1] Filing documents into a sealed court record does not violate a confidentiality agreement restricting access to those documents when the filings are made into a sealed jud…
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“because Appellees had filed the documents into a record that had been sealed by various court orders, these filings – into a sealed record – did not violate the Order or the Agreement”
The trial court's core reasoning for denying sanctions: filing into a sealed record does not violate a confidentiality agreement restricting access.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had executed a non-disclosure and confidentiality agreement approved by the trial court on September 22, 2020, which restricted access to …
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 Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed October 30, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0287 Lower Tribunal No. 18-26405
________________
Gary B. Crouch,
Appellant,
vs.
Briana Brumer, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge. Michael Compagno, P.A., and Michael Compagno (West Palm Beach), for appellant. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, and David Gersten and John T. Mills, for appellees. Before EMAS, SCALES, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant Gary B. Crouch challenges a post-judgment order denying his two October 13, 2022 motions to impose sanctions on Appellees Briana Brumer and JB Kelly, LLC, as well as on Appellees’ trial counsel. Appellant argues that Appellees’ filing of certain documents in this case violated the parties’ non-disclosure and confidentiality agreement (the “Agreement”) – approved by the trial court on September 22, 2020 (the “Order”) – which restricted access to those filings “for attorney’s eyes only.” After conducting a non-evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s sanctions motions, the trial court determined that, because Appellees had filed the documents into a record that had been sealed by various court orders, these filings – into a sealed record – did not violate the Order or the Agreement. Perceiving no abuse of discretion1 in the trial court’s ruling, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crouch v. Brumer, 345 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…ord that had been sealed by various court orders, these filings – into a sealed record – did not violate the Order or the Agreement. Perceiving no abuse of discretion1 in the trial court’s ruling, we affirm. 1 See Shir Law Grp., P.A. v. Carnevale, 345 So. 3d 380, 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).…
-
Schmitz v. Schmitz, 401 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…of restrained use and due process.” Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 227 (Fla. 2002). Accordingly, the trial court must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to imposing a sanction. See, e.g., Shir Law Grp., P.A. v. Carnevale, 345 So. 3d 380, 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). “While ‘a trial court has the inherent power to impose sanctions on a party who destroys evidence or perpetuates a fraud upon the court,’ that power should be exercised with great restraint because the courts of this stat…
-
New World Condo. Apts. Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Lawonda Breedlove (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…. 3d 675, 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citing Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91, 103 (Fla. 2011)) ("The standard of review of an order granting a motion for class certification is abuse of discretion."); Shir Law Group, P.A. v. Carnevale, 345 So. 3d 380, 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Discretion is abused where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court."). The class definition—“[a]ll tenants and others who lawfully resided in a condominium unit at New World Condo on January 28,…
Authorities Cited
- Crouch v. Brumer, 345 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)