Goodwin v. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goodwin v. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

194 So. 3d 1041, 2016 WL 1296086

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 1, 2016

DocketNo. 1D15-2142

StatusPublished

This text of 194 So. 3d 1041 (Goodwin v. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration) 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

Goodwin v. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, 194 So. 3d 1041, 2016 WL 1296086 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gabrielle Goodwin appeals a trial court’s order denying class certification. According to the parties’ request, this case is travelling with Ms. Goodwin’s appeal of an administrative order of the Florida Department of Children and Families that rejected her individual claim on the merits. She has acknowledged that the underlying claim in both cases are identical. Thus, in view of this court’s decision affirming DCF’s order denying her companion administrative challenge on the merits, Goodwin v. Florida Department of Children and Families, 1D12-4430, 2016 WL 1295045 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), we conclude that Ms. Goodwin does not possess standing to represent the class in this case. See Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So.3d 91, 116-17 (Fla.2011) (“To satisfy the standing requirement for a class action claim, the class representative must illustrate that a case or controversy exists between him or her and the defendant, and that this case or controversy will continue throughout the existence of the litigation.”).

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Gabrielle Goodwin appeals a trial court’s order denying class certification. According to the parties’ request, this case is travelling with Ms. Goodwin’s appeal of an administrative order of the Florida Department of Children and Families that rejected her individual claim on the merits. She has acknowledged that the underlying claim in both cases are identical. Thus, in view of this court’s decision affirming DCF’s order denying her companion administrative challenge on the merits, Goodwin v. Florida Department of Children and Families, 1D12-4430, 2016 WL 1295045 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), we conclude that Ms. Goodwin does not possess standing to represent the class in this case. See Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So.3d 91, 116-17 (Fla.2011) (“To satisfy the standing requirement for a class action claim, the class representative must illustrate that a case or controversy exists between him or her and the defendant, and that this case or controversy will continue throughout the existence of the litigation.”).

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 So. 3d 1041, 2016 WL 1296086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodwin-v-florida-agency-for-health-care-administration-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack