AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND AERODEX, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
DOMINICK DEANGELIS, JR., AND PAUL BERGMAN, APPELLEES
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.
Aetna Life Insurance Company and Aerodex, Inc. appealed from orders denying a motion for summary judgment on class action grounds and directing notice to the class. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's orders, finding that the class definition, while potentially broad, did not constitute an abuse of discretion and could be modified later if necessary.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in defining the class. Although the definition may be broad, the appellants failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, and the trial court retains discretion to modify the class definition later if it proves too expansive.
[1] A party's failure to timely appeal an order determining a cause to be a proper class action precludes appellate review of that determination in a subsequent appeal limite…
[2] An order denying a motion for rehearing, even if styled as a motion for summary judgment, is generally not an appealable order if the underlying determination has already…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“While it may be true that the trial court has defined the class too broadly, we do not think' the appellants have demonstrated an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for class definition disputes and the court's holding that no abuse of discretion occurred.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees, employees of Aerodex, Inc., filed a class action complaint alleging that Aerodex misappropriated funds withheld from employees' paychecks a…
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 Scope Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
[*107] HENDRY, Judge.
Appellants, defendants below, take these consolidated interlocutory appeals from two orders, one denying appellant Aerodex, Inc.’s motion for a summary judgment de-' nying class action and the other styled “Order Directing Notice to the Class.”
The trial court treated appellant Aero-dex’s motion for summary judgment as a second motion for rehearing, and following a motion to dismiss these appeals filed by the appellees and subsequent motions for clarification, this court directed by order of March 26, 1975 that the appeals would be limited to review of the order directing notice to the class.
Therefore, appellant’s contentions that a class action is not properly brought in this case is not before us at this juncture because the appellants did not timely appeal the trial court’s order of July 5, 1973 determining this cause to be a proper class action. It follows that the subsequent order denying what in effect was a second motion for rehearing is not an appealable order. Southwest Electric Supply, Inc. v. Banfield, Fla.App. 1974, 302 So. 2d 810; Florida Living for Retired v. Retirement Hotel Assoc., Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 83.
We do not imply, of course, that the trial court may not reconsider the propriety of class action status to this proceeding at a later time. The order of July 5, 1973 indicates the court’s intention to reconsider this issue at any time during the course of the case.
The only real issue remaining for our consideration is the definition of the class formulated by the court in its order directing notice.
Appellants argue that the definition is too broad extending to class members who were not damaged.
Appellees as representatives of a class of employees of Aerodex, Inc. filed a complaint against the company and the appellant Aetna Life Insurance Company.
The¡ complaint read together with appellees’ brief filed in this case reflects that the appellant Aerodex is charged with misappropriating funds withheld from its employees’ paychecks as insurance premiums and allocating the funds to general corporate working expenditures.
Appellees further charge that Aetna knew of this misappropriation and cooperated with Aerodex. Both appellants are accused of a breach of a fiduciary duty to the employees and with fraudulent concealment of material facts.
It is contended that this scheme existed from approximately April 1967 through September 1971, which time period is included in the trial court’s definition of the class.
While it may be true that the trial court has defined the class too broadly, we do not think' the appellants have demonstrated an abuse of discretion. Cf., Paulino v. Hardister, Fla.App. 1974, 306 So. 2d 125. We agree with appellees’ suggestion that the court in its discretion might later determine that its original definition (which perhaps was devised primarily to fulfill notice requirements as broadly and fairly as possible) is too broad and accordingly modify it.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the orders under review are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 452 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…amaged by the defendants’ alleged actions, the appropriate remedy would not be dismissal, but instead a narrowing of the class being represented by the plaintiffs so as to exclude the undamaged members. See Aetna Life Insurance Company v. DeAngelis, 317 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Living FOR THE Retired, Inc. v. Ret. Hotel Assocs., Inc., 167 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Sw. Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Banfield, 302 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)