Goldfarb v. Insurance Co. of North America

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goldfarb v. Insurance Co. of North America

642 So. 2d 586, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8368, 1994 WL 454870

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 1994

DocketNo. 94-16

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 642 So. 2d 586 (Goldfarb v. Insurance Co. of North America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldfarb v. Insurance Co. of North America, 642 So. 2d 586, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8368, 1994 WL 454870 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a non-final order denying a designation of a matter in the trial court as a class action.

[587]*587We affirm for two reasons. First, the plaintiff was estopped by the doctrine of the “law of the case” from now urging that the claims of the several plaintiffs and of the class, are common, having previously argued successfully before the local federal district court judge that they were separate.¹ See and compare U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Columbia Cos. Co., 124 Fla. 633, 169 So. 532 (1936); Dickerson v. Shikany, 485 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Alford v. Summerlin, 423 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Second, no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated by the appellants, and without such, the trial court should be affirmed in denying the class certification. See and compare East Texas Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 S.Ct. 1891, 1896, 52 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977); Arrowsmith v. Broward County, 633 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Love v. General Dev. Corp., 555 So.2d 397, 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Adiel v. Electronic Fin. Sys., Inc., 513 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So.2d 5 (Fla.1983). Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the trial court order denying certification as a class action is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a non-final order denying a designation of a matter in the trial court as a class action.

[587]*587We affirm for two reasons. First, the plaintiff was estopped by the doctrine of the “law of the case” from now urging that the claims of the several plaintiffs and of the class, are common, having previously argued successfully before the local federal district court judge that they were separate.¹ See and compare U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Columbia Cos. Co., 124 Fla. 633, 169 So. 532 (1936); Dickerson v. Shikany, 485 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Alford v. Summerlin, 423 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Second, no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated by the appellants, and without such, the trial court should be affirmed in denying the class certification. See and compare East Texas Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 S.Ct. 1891, 1896, 52 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977); Arrowsmith v. Broward County, 633 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Love v. General Dev. Corp., 555 So.2d 397, 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Adiel v. Electronic Fin. Sys., Inc., 513 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So.2d 5 (Fla.1983). Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the trial court order denying certification as a class action is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 So. 2d 586, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8368, 1994 WL 454870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldfarb-v-insurance-co-of-north-america-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack