Skip to main content

3d DCA Watch -- Trial Judge Merry-Go-Round!


Hi kids, the bunker has decided to grace us this week with a fairly scholarly opinion on shareholder derivative/individual suits, in addition to the usual mix of PCAs and obscure reversals in part that require you to piece together several opinions to understand what actually happened:

Popkin v. Scharlin:

Q: How many trial judges does it take to issue a costs order?
A:  A bunch (see footnotes 3 and 5).

Dinuro v. Camacho:

This is the scholarly opinion looking at when shareholders can sue individually in the closely-held context:
Florida law, as it currently stands, embraces none of these tests individually, but utilizes all three to determine whether an action can be brought directly. As the Florida Supreme Court has not established a rule on this issue, a determination of the current standard requires the synthesis of nearly fifty years of case law developed in the Florida Courts of Appeal.
Here is where Judge Rothenberg winds up:
In short, the current Florida doctrine explaining which actions should be maintained directly and which must be brought derivatively is incredibly opaque, the application often varying from case to case depending on the facts. In our view, the only way to reconcile nearly fifty years of apparently divergent case law on this point is by holding that an action may be brought directly only if (1) there is a direct harm to the shareholder or member such that the alleged injury does not flow subsequently from an initial harm to the company and (2) there is a special injury to the shareholder or member that is separate and distinct from those sustained by the other shareholders or members.
Perhaps a tad restrictive, but a nuanced and well-reasoned opinion.

Comments

  1. She can ride my pony.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly. She had never met a plaintiff she didn't want to fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's Rothenberg, not Rothenburg. And the opinion's actually about when members of LLCs may sue other members of LLCs, not about shareholder-derivative suits. Further, I wouldn't encourage the Third DCA to continue to issue 24-page opinions by calling them "scholarly"; I miss the days of one- to two-page opinions. Not only are they easier to read, but they often, though admittedly not always, are clearer about what the law is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oops, thanks. But it is indeed about whether the suit can be maintained as direct or as a derivative action after all those hoops are jumped.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Because the operating agreements do not authorize suit against the members
    directly for a breach of their terms, and because Dinuro has not alleged a breach of
    the statutory duty of loyalty or care, no separate duty was owed specifically to
    Dinuro, and the trial court properly dismissed Dinuro’s causes of action for lack of
    standing in Dinuro’s individual capacity. These claims should have been brought
    as a derivative action.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Agreed with you there, SFL. But LLCs don't have shareholders, unless I'm mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The opinion deals both with "members" of an LLC or, depending on the situation, "shareholders" of a closely-held corporation. The standard she has articulated will be applicable to both.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You're certainly right about that, SFL.

    Sorry, I guess I'm still peeved about how long the opinion is, and still nostalgic for the shorter opinions. If the facts of this particular case concern only an LLC, I'm not so sure why the Third DCA should feel the need to pontificate on direct and derivative actions in the corporation context as well. Some would call that dicta.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Kind of Federal Judge!

Sure we have Scott Rothstein and his lovely Tom James clothier Romina Sifuentes, but Louisiana has ED LA judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.:
A federal judge from Louisiana who had run up big gambling debts routinely solicited money and gifts from lawyers with cases before his court, Congressional investigators said Tuesday as the House opened impeachment hearings in the judge’s case. The judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court, had more than $150,000 in credit card debt by 2000, mostly for cash advances spent in casinos, investigators said. Judge Porteous’s requests for cash became so frequent that one New Orleans lawyer said he started trying to dodge the judge.“He began to use excuses that he needed it for tuition, he needed it for living expenses,” the lawyer, Robert Creely, told a House Judiciary Committee task force. “I would avoid him until I couldn’t avoid him anymore.”
Mr. Creely said he and his law partner, Jacob Amato, gave Judge Porteous an estimated $20,000 o…

Honoring Richard C. Seavey

I drank a shit-ton of bourbon last night. Enough to float a battleship.

My head hurts. But not as much as my heart.

We lost another lawyer over the weekend. Not someone who will receive facebook accolades and other public claims of friendship and statements that he shaped and changed lives and careers. Just a guy who did the best he could with what he had. Every day. And he did very, very well to be the best person he could be. 
Richard Seavey was a profoundly private person. In his 49 years, he walked through more than his share of trials and tribulations, mostly asking for no help, leaning on no one. 

Richard was a fantastic lawyer. He could try a case. He could "litigate" a case. He could mediate and settle a case. He was nuanced. He bent but never broke. The blustery Miami lawyer never scared him. To the contrary, he found humor in it, studying it like a science project. Richard never got too high or too low. He was good at lawyering, but you got the f…

First Carnival Triumph Lawsuit on File!

It was filed in the SD FL (of course) and is pending before Judge Graham.

Check it out here.

The lawyer on the pleading is Marcus R. Spagnoletti.