Coastal Physician Servs. of Broward Cnty., Inc. v. Ortiz, 764 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Coastal Physician Servs. of Broward Cnty., Inc. v. Ortiz, 764 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Big Gates Records, LLC, Washington v. Stewart (fladistctapp, 2026-06-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Big Gates Records, LLC, Washington v. Stewart
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
USA, Inc. v. Mailers Data Servs., Inc., 760 So. 2d 1037, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (quoting approvingly the court's explanation in Coastal Physician Services of Broward County v. Ortiz, 764 So. 2d 7, 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), that "[o]ther states can protect their own residents" in class actions based on debt collection activity by a Florida physician's office, thereby limiting discovery to debt collection materials only sent to in-state consumers).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Melton v. Century Arms, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 2017 · confidence medium
Ct. App. 2000) (reversing order certifying nationwide class under Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act because “only in-state consumers can pursue a valid claim”); Coastal Physician Servs. of Broward Cnty., Inc. v. Ortiz, 764 So.2d 7, 8 (Fla. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ajose v. Interline Brands, Inc.
M.D. Tenn. · 2016 · confidence medium
Florida courts have held that the FDUTPA exists for “the protection of in-state consumers,” Coastal Physician Servs. of Broward Cty., Inc. v. Ortiz, 764 So.2d 7, 8 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999), and “protects non-Florida consumers only when the alleged wrongful conduct occurred within the State of Florida,” Stein v. Marquis Yachts, LLC, No. 14-24756-CIV, 2015 WL 1288146 , at *6 (S.D.Fla.
discussed Cited "see" In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation
E.D. Pa. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Coastal Physician Servs. of Broward County v. Ortiz, 764 So.2d 7, 8 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999) (stating that “non-Florida residents cannot make claims under ... the Deceptive and Unfaii’ Trade Practices Act”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Flonase Antitrust Litigation
E.D. Pa. · 2010 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Coastal Physician Servs, of Broward County v. Ortiz, 764 So.2d 7, 8 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999) (stating that “non-Florida residents cannot make claims under ... the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act”), and Oce Printing Sys., USA Inc. v. Mailers Data Servs., Inc., 760 So.2d 1037, 1042 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000) (citing Coastal Physician and agreeing that “the Unfair Trade Act was enacted to protect in-state consumers”), with Millennium Commc’ns & Fulfillment, Inc. v. Office of the Attorney Gen., 761 So.2d 1256, 1260-61 (Fla.Dist.Ct.
cited Cited "see, e.g." In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation
E.D. Pa. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Coastal Physician Services of Broward County v. Ortiz, 764 So.2d 7 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COASTAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES OF BROWARD COUNTY, INC. and Healthcare Business Resources, Inc., Petitioners,
v.
Carmen ORTIZ, Respondent.
98-1564.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan 27, 1999.
764 So. 2d 7
Warner.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

[*8] Paul H. Field of Lane, Reese, Aulick, Summers & Field, P.A., Coral Gables, for petitioners.

Marshall J. Osofsky and Louis M. Silber of Lewis, Vegosen, Rosenbach, Silber & Dunkel, P.A., and Philip L. Valente, Jr. of Valente & Natale, L.L.C., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

WARNER, J.

The petitioner, on motion for rehearing, again objects to our failure to limit the discovery request to Florida residents, allowing the respondent to pursue discovery related to non-Florida recipients of the offending billing notices. The petitioner claims that since non-Florida residents cannot make claims under either the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, sections 501.201-.213, Florida Statutes (1997), or the Consumer Collection Practices Act, sections 559.55-.785, Florida Statutes (1997), discovery should not be allowed regarding out-of-state billings. Having reviewed the statutory provisions, we conclude that these acts are for the protection of in-state consumers from either in-state or out-of-state debt collectors. See, e.g., § 501.202(3); § 559.55(6). Other states can protect their own residents, as Florida itself does with regard to out-of-state collectors. See, e.g., § 559.565.

We therefore grant the petition for certiorari to the extent that it requests discovery of billing notices sent to the residents of other states.

POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.