HeartPoint Global, Inc., etc. v. Dragon Blue Limited, etc.
This text of HeartPoint Global, Inc., etc. v. Dragon Blue Limited, etc. (HeartPoint Global, Inc., etc. v. Dragon Blue Limited, etc.) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 10, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D23-1921 Lower Tribunal No. 23-16924
HeartPoint Global, Inc., etc., Appellant,
vs.
Dragon Blue Limited, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge.
Sniffen & Spellman P.A., and Robert J. Hauser (West Palm Beach), for appellant.
Shutts & Bowen LLP, Aleksey Shtivelman, and Douglas M. Kramer, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 607.1602(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“This section does not
affect: The power of a court, independently of this chapter, to compel the
production of corporate records for examination and to impose reasonable
restrictions ”); Klein v. Estate of Klein, 295 So. 3d 793, 803 (Fla. 4th DCA
2020) (“[T]he [appellees] waived the right to an evidentiary hearing by
agreeing, in advance, to the [trial] court holding a non-evidentiary hearing on
the allocation question. Notably, the [appellees] did not object to the basic
procedure of holding a non-evidentiary hearing until the middle of the
hearing. By waiting until the hearing was well under way to object to the
agreed-upon procedure, any error in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing
was either waived or invited.”); Portales v. Another Beautiful Corp., 121 So.
3d 562, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“By the appellant's failure to timely object
to the procedure she now contends to be irregular, she is deemed to have
waived the objection by acquiescence.”); Computer Sols., Inc. v. Gnaizda,
633 So. 2d 1100,1101-02 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (a shareholder inspection to
determine the value of stock is considered a proper purpose); State ex rel.
Fussell v. McLendon, 109 So. 2d 783, 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) (it is proper
for a stockholder to know how the company and its assets are managed).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
HeartPoint Global, Inc., etc. v. Dragon Blue Limited, etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heartpoint-global-inc-etc-v-dragon-blue-limited-etc-fladistctapp-2024.