Adiel v. Elec. Fin. Sys., 513 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Adiel v. Elec. Fin. Sys., 513 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Christoff v. Inglese (flmd, 2022-01-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christoff v. Inglese
M.D. Fla. · 2022 · confidence medium
Sys., Inc., 513 So. 2d 1347, 1347-48 (Fla. Dist.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Miami Automotive Retail, Inc. v. Baldwin
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Sys., Inc., 513 So.2d 1347, 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Batur v. SIGNATURE PROPS. OF NORTHWEST FLA.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Sys., Inc., 513 So.2d 1347, 1348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), because "the evidence shows that ... [Mr. Batur] himself engaged in self-dealing and usurped corporate opportunities." Answer Brief, at 41.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Batur v. Signature Properties of Northwest Florida, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Sys., Inc., 513 So.2d 1347, 1348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), because "the evidence shows that ... [Mr. Batur] himself engaged in self-dealing and usurped corporate opportunities.” Answer Brief, at 41.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allied Minority Contractors Ass'n v. Broward County
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Sys., Inc., 513 So.2d 1347, 1348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(finding no abuse of discretion in trial court’s disqualification of plaintiffs in a shareholder’s derivative suit where attempt to “cajole the board of directors ... into effectuating a merger with a corporation he [plaintiff] controlled demonstrated that his motivation in pursuing the suit was inimical to the interests of the shareholders”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ramos v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Sys., Inc., 513 So.2d 1347, 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see also Broin, 641 So.2d 888 .
cited Cited "see" Bernstein v. Workers' Compensation Medical Centers, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rehavam ADIEL and Rivka Rosenbaum, Individually and Collectively On Behalf of EFS, Inc., Appellants,
v.
ELECTRONIC FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., Jack W. Cox, William R. Fusselman and Edgar D. Schraub, Appellees.
87-268.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct 13, 1987.
513 So. 2d 1347
Barkdull, Nesbitt and Baskin.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

Nortman & Bloom and William Nortman, Miami, for appellants.

Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson and Stanley H. Wakshlag; Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel and Kendall B. Coffey and Janet L. Humphreys, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court's order disqualifying both Rehavam Adiel and Rivka Rosenbaum from acting as representative plaintiffs in this shareholder derivative action. A trial court's determination as to the qualifications of plaintiffs to adequately represent a class of shareholders in a shareholders' derivative action will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. See Rothenberg v. Security Management Co.,[*1348] 667 F.2d 958 (11th Cir.1982); Owen v. Modern Diversified Indus., Inc., 643 F.2d 441 (6th Cir.1981); Hornreich v. Plant Indus., Inc., 535 F.2d 550 (9th Cir.1976); cf. Malchman v. Davis, 761 F.2d 893 (2d Cir.1985) (whether plaintiff's representation in anti-trust class action suit is adequate is within the sound discretion of the trial court), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143, 106 S.Ct. 1798, 90 L.Ed.2d 343 (1986). The trial court was well within its discretion in determining that Adiel's attempts to cajole the board of directors of Electronic Financial Systems, Inc. into effectuating a merger with a corporation he controlled demonstrated that his motivation in pursuing the suit was inimical to the interests of the shareholders and made him an improper party to maintain this action. See Davis v. Comed, Inc., 619 F.2d 588 (6th Cir.1980); Blum v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co., 539 F.2d 1388 (5th Cir.1976); G.A. Enters v. Leisure Living Communities, Inc., 517 F.2d 24 (1st Cir.1975); Nolen v. Shaw-Walker Co., 449 F.2d 506 (6th Cir.1971); Roussel v. Tidelands Capital Corp., 438 F. Supp. 684 (N.D.Ala. 1977). Likewise, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Rosenbaum, Adiel's elderly aunt, was acting under Adiel's direction and is, therefore, also an improper party to bring the action. See Nolen, 449 F.2d at 506. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order disqualifying both Rehavam Adiel and Rivka Rosenbaum from pursuing this shareholder derivative action.