Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Labora

670 So. 2d 1025, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1615, 1996 WL 82672
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 28, 1996
Docket95-2606
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 670 So. 2d 1025 (Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Labora) 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
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Labora, 670 So. 2d 1025, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1615, 1996 WL 82672 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

670 So.2d 1025 (1996)

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Appellant,
v.
Alexander J. LABORA, Appellee.

No. 95-2606.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

February 28, 1996.
Rehearing Denied April 17, 1996.

Arnstein & Lehr, and Wesley A. Lauer, West Palm Beach; Arstein & Lehr, and Stanley M. Lipnick, and Arthur L. Klein, and Thomas P. Yardley, Chicago, for appellant.

Maland & Ross, and Lauri Waldman Ross, Miami, for appellee.

*1026 Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and GERSTEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Sears, Roebuck and Co., appeals an order granting appellee Alexander J. Labora's motion for class action certification in a breach of contract action. We affirm with modification.

The four prerequisites for class certification are numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation. Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.220(a). See Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., 641 So.2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), rev. denied, 654 So.2d 919 (Fla.1995). We have carefully reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's application of these criteria to grant class certification. See Love v. General Dev. Corp., 555 So.2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Accordingly, we affirm the order granting class certification except to the extent that it identifies the class as including "all persons and business entities." In accordance with this Court's recent opinion in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 672 So.2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), we direct that the order be modified to limit the certified class to "Florida residents and business entities."

Additionally, we find no error in the trial court's ruling that the appellant initially pay the cost of notice. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.220(d)(2). At this stage of the proceedings, this ruling provides the most economically viable means of assuring efficient and cost-effective notification. See Johnson v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. Partnership, 641 So.2d 58 (Fla.1994); Frankel v. City of Miami Beach, 340 So.2d 463 (Fla.1976).

Affirmed with directions.

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

Related

FLORIDA DEPT. OF AGR. v. Cox
947 So. 2d 561 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services v. Cox
947 So. 2d 561 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Allstate Indem. Co. v. De La Rosa
800 So. 2d 245 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Amedex Insurance Co. v. Rothe ex rel. Collado
794 So. 2d 630 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Merrimack Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Power
727 So. 2d 1000 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Southeast Bank, NA v. Almeida
693 So. 2d 1015 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
670 So. 2d 1025, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1615, 1996 WL 82672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sears-roebuck-and-co-v-labora-fladistctapp-1996.