class action waiver in Florida

2003"There must be a sound basis in fact, not supposition, that the requirements of the class action rule have been satisfied." Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Demario, 661 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

2002See also Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Demario, 661 So.2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(“must be a sound basis in fact, not supposition, that the requirements of the class action rule have been satisfied”).

2025And after conducting "a rigorous analysis to determine that the elements of [Florida Rule of Civil Procedure] 1.220, the class action rule, have been met," Gundel, 290 So. 3d at 1084 (alteration in original) (quoting Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 867-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)), the court "should resolve doubts with regard to certification in favor of certification, especially in the early stages of litigation," Sosa, 73 So. 3d at 105 .

2024“To satisfy the standing requirement for a class action claim, the class representative must illustrate that a case or controversy exists between him or her and the defendant, and that this case or controversy will continue throughout the 5 existence of the litigation.” Id.

2009See Kia Motors, 985 So.2d at 1136 ; Wyeth, 930 So.2d at 638 ; Ortiz v. Ford Motor Co., 909 So.2d 479, 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Demario, 661 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

2009See Kia Motors, 985 So.2d at 1136 ; Wyeth, 930 So.2d at 638 ; Ortiz v. Ford Motor Co., 909 So.2d 479, 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Demario, 661 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

2013The issue raised by the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in McKenzie v. Betts, 55 So.3d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), is whether the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement in this case violates Florida public policy. 1 After the Fourth District decided this case, concluding that the class action waiver violated public policy, and certified a question to be of great public importance to this Court, 2 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in AT & T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 1744, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011), addressing the issue of wheth

2013The issue raised by the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in McKenzie v. Betts, 55 So.3d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), is whether the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement in this case violates Florida public policy. 1 After the Fourth District decided this case, concluding that the class action waiver violated public policy, and certified a question to be of great public importance to this Court, 2 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in AT & T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 1744, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011), addressing the issue of wheth

2013Under the Discover Bank rule, a class action waiver in a consumer contract of adhesion is unenforceable “in a setting in which disputes between the contracting parties predictably involve small amounts of damages, and when it is alleged that the party with the superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money” because “the waiver becomes in practice the exemption of the party ‘from responsibility for [its] own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another.’ ” Id. at 1746 (quoting Discover

2013Under the Discover Bank rule, a class action waiver in a consumer contract of adhesion is unenforceable “in a setting in which disputes between the contracting parties predictably involve small amounts of damages, and when it is alleged that the party with the superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money” because “the waiver becomes in practice the exemption of the party ‘from responsibility for [its] own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another.’ ” Id. at 1746 (quoting Discover

2018Since Shotts, our supreme court in McKenzie addressed an arbitration agreement that contained a class action waiver that the Fourth District had determined was a violation of Florida public policy. 112 So. 3d at 1177 .

2016Applying Concepcion in McKenzie II, the Florida Supreme Court held that “the class action waiver in this case is enforceable.” 112 So.3d at 1180 .

2021“The very purpose of a class suit is to save a multiplicity of suits, to reduce the expense of litigation, to make legal processes more effective and expeditious, and to make available a remedy that would not otherwise exist.” Tenney v. City of Miami Beach, 11 So. 2d 188, 189 (Fla. 1942).

1994"The very purpose of a class suit is to save a multiplicity of suits, to reduce the expense of litigation, to make legal processes more effective and expeditious, and to make available a remedy that would not otherwise exist." Tenney v. City of Miami Beach, 11 So.2d 188, 189 (Fla. 1942).

2021Co., 928 So. 2d 374, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that absent an existing case or controversy between the parties, there would not be standing to pursue a class action claim or represent a class).

2021Co., 928 So. 2d 374, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that absent an existing case or controversy between the parties, there would not be standing to pursue a class action claim or represent a class).

2006See Neighborhood Health, 913 So.2d at 706 ; Taran, 685 So.2d at 1006 ; see also Webb, 699 So.2d at 860 .

2006See Webb, 699 So.2d at 860 .

2013The issue raised by the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in McKenzie v. Betts, 55 So.3d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), is whether the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement in this case violates Florida public policy. 1 After the Fourth District decided this case, concluding that the class action waiver violated public policy, and certified a question to be of great public importance to this Court, 2 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in AT & T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 1744, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011), addressing the issue of wheth

2013The Fourth District disagreed, stating that “[c]ompetent, substantial evidence supported] the trial court’s finding that no other reasonable avenue for relief would be available if it enforced the class action waiver.” Id. at 623 .

2013See Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 592 F.3d 1119, 1143-44 (11th Cir.2010).

2011Id. at 1142-43 .

2011McKenzie cites to Dale v. Comcast Corp., 498 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir.2007), which falls into this category. 9 In Dale , the Eleventh Circuit reversed an order granting Comcast’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the class action waiver unconscionable.

2007See also Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 27 , 111 S.Ct. 1647 , 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991) (finding agreement to arbitrate age discrimination claim under Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) enforceable notwithstanding fact that "the ADEA is designed not only to address individual grievances, but also to further important social policies"). [16] See also Dale v. Comcast Corp., 498 F.3d 1216, 1224 (11th Cir.2007) (concluding arbitration clause precluding class relief substantively unconscionable and determining that "the enforceability of a particular class action waiver

2011It is in this category that we find the class action waiver case closest to the instant one: Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.2006). 10 *628 In Kristian , the First Circuit invalidated a class arbitration waiver because it prevented the plaintiffs from vindicating their statutory rights.

2007See also Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 27 , 111 S.Ct. 1647 , 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991) (finding agreement to arbitrate age discrimination claim under Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) enforceable notwithstanding fact that "the ADEA is designed not only to address individual grievances, but also to further important social policies"). [16] See also Dale v. Comcast Corp., 498 F.3d 1216, 1224 (11th Cir.2007) (concluding arbitration clause precluding class relief substantively unconscionable and determining that "the enforceability of a particular class action waiver

2011Autos, Inc. v. Chrzanowski, 976 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (applying Florida law and holding that a class action waiver violated public policy when the part of FDUTPA that applied to car dealers provided for attorney’s fees “as are reasonable in light of the amount of the individual’s actual damages”), and Gordon v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 666 F.Supp.2d 1347 (N.D.Ga.2009) (following Dale to hold that a class action waiver was unconscionable under Georgia law because an award of attorney’s fees was not likely under the statutes the individual plaintiff sued on, one of which was the same

2010Autos, Inc. v. Chrzanowski, 976 So.2d 600, 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that contractual provisions in an arbitration agreement purporting to prohibit consumers from prosecuting class actions for small sums of money per consumer, but for a substantial number of consumers, “are irreconcilably at odds with the remedial purposes of FDUTPA, contrary to the public policy of this state, and unenforceable for that reason”), and a group of federal cases holding that the validity of a class action waiver provision should be adjudicated by the court, not the arbitrators. 4 Comcast counters that the

2026If the association has the authority to maintain a class action under this rule, the association may be joined in an action as representative of that class with reference to litigation and 1 The proceedings prior to the filing of the amended complaint, as well as the settlement of the third homeowners’ association that was originally part of the proceedings, are irrelevant to this appeal. 2 “The standard of review for the trial court’s interpretation of the rules of civil procedure [] is de novo.” Carl Domino, Inc. v. Dixon, 358 So. 3d 29 , 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (citing Donado v. PennyMac Cor

2025And after conducting "a rigorous analysis to determine that the elements of [Florida Rule of Civil Procedure] 1.220, the class action rule, have been met," Gundel, 290 So. 3d at 1084 (alteration in original) (quoting Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 867-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)), the court "should resolve doubts with regard to certification in favor of certification, especially in the early stages of litigation," Sosa, 73 So. 3d at 105 .

2016“Additionally, the law of the cáse doctrine may foreclose subsequent consideration of *535 issues implicitly- addressed or necessarily considered by the appellate court’s decision.” Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 106 (Fla.2001) (emphasis added).

2016In response, the plaintiffs argue that the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable because McKenzie II did not rule on “the issue presented here — whether the arbitrator must enforce the class waiver or, as the trial court phrased the issue, ‘whether class arbitration is available under the arbitration provision.’” We hold that McKenzie II already has determined that the arbitration provision’s class action waiver is enforceable and, therefore, permits the plaintiffs to pursue in arbitration only their individual claims. '“The doctrine of -law of the case is limited to rulings on questions of

2016In response, the plaintiffs argue that the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable because McKenzie II did not rule on “the issue presented here — whether the arbitrator must enforce the class waiver or, as the trial court phrased the issue, ‘whether class arbitration is available under the arbitration provision.’” We hold that McKenzie II already has determined that the arbitration provision’s class action waiver is enforceable and, therefore, permits the plaintiffs to pursue in arbitration only their individual claims. '“The doctrine of -law of the case is limited to rulings on questions of

2013See Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 648 F.3d 1205, 1212 (11th Cir.2011).

2013See Sonic Auto., Inc. v. Watts, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2872 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1184 (2011).

2013See Sonic Auto., Inc. v. Watts, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2872 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1184 (2011).

2013See Pendergast, 691 F.3d at 1236 .

2012Sept. 26, 2006); see also Laughlin v. Household Bank, Ltd., 969 So.2d 509, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (quoting Harris v. Beneficial Fin.