Holmes v. City of Palm Bay

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 11, 2018
• Docket: 5D16-2993
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

BRENDA J. HOLMES, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-2993

CITY OF PALM BAY AND GATSO USA, INC.,

Appellees.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 15, 2018

Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, John M. Harris, Judge.

David M. Kerner and Jason D. Weisser, of Schuler, Halvorson, Weisser, Zoeller & Overbeck, P.A., and Andrew A. Harris, of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

Robert Alden Swift, Christina Bredahl Gierke and Christine A. Wasula, of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee Gatso USA, Inc.

Erin J. O’Leary and Scott Danahy, of Garganese, Weiss & D’Agresta, P.A., Orlando, and Andrew P. Lannon, Patricia D. Smith, Peter J. Sweeney, Jr., Jill E. Jacobs, and Wendy L. Fisher, of Office of the City Attorney City of Palm Bay, Palm Bay, for Appellee City of Palm Bay. PER CURIAM.

Brenda Holmes appeals a non-final order denying her motion to certify the class.

We affirm the trial court’s order determining that Holmes failed to establish the typicality

and predominance elements required under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a) and

1.220(b)(3), respectively. See Easter v. City of Orlando, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1306 (Fla.

5th DCA June 8, 2018). We further conclude that there was no error in the trial court’s

determination that Holmes failed to establish that she would be an adequate class

representative.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.