The 2023 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
In light of the circumstances presented, the Court invokes its authority under Local Rule 1.01(b)- which permits the Court to suspend application of a local rule-and declines to enforce Local Rule 7.01's bifurcation approach to fee requests. M.D. Fla. R. 1.01(b).Fla. Admin. Code r. 59G-1.01(2.46); Pls.' Ex. 22, ECF No. 175-22 at 5.These protections sweep broadly, by their own terms. To facilitate the Code's "orderly and centralized" debt resolution process, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶1.01, these provisions' basic requirements generally apply to all creditors.Courts can also enforce these requirements against any kind of noncompliant creditor-whether or not the creditor is a "governmental unit"-by virtue of §106(a)'s abrogation of sovereign immunity. §§106(a)(1)-(3).This cause comes before the Court upon the filing of a letter from Defendants addressed to the undersigned. Doc. No. 19. Upon review, and based on the representations made in the letter, the Court has made an exception to Local Rule 3.01(j) and permitted the filing to be placed on the docket and construed as a motion. See Local Rule 1.01(b). However, the parties are cautioned that going forward, the Court will not accept unauthorized correspondence of this nature. See Local Rule 3.01 (j) (“NO UNAUTHORIZED CORRESPONDENCE. A party may not use a letter, email, or the like to request relief or to respond to a request for relief.”).On this point, Percoco's arguments sweep too broadly. To be sure, the pre-McNally record on honest-services fraud is clearest when the Government seeks to prosecute actual public officials. Most of the pre-McNally honest-services prosecutions, including what appears to be the first case to adopt that theory, involved actual public officials. See Skilling, 561 U.S., at 400-401 (citing Shushan v. United States, 117 F.2d 110, 115 (CA5 1941)). But we reject the argument that a person nominally outside public employment can never have the necessary fiduciary duty to the public. Without becoming a government employee, individuals not formally employed by a government entity may enter into agreements that make them actual agents of the government. An "agent owes a fiduciary obligation to the principal," see, e.g., 1 Restatement (Third) of Agency §1.01, Comment e, p. 23 (2005), and therefore an agent of the government has a fiduciary duty to the government and thus to the public it serves. In this Court, Percoco has agreed that individuals who are "delegated authority to act on behalf" of a public official and to perform government duties have a duty to provide honest services… First, the Defendants cite the County's Home Rule Charter, which outlines the governing framework for Miami-Dade County. See MTD at 6. According to the Charter, the Board of County Commissioners is the “legislative and governing body of the county” with the power to “[p]repar[e] and enforc[e] comprehensive master plans for the development of the county” and to “[a]dopt[ ] and enforce[ ] uniform building and related technical codes and regulations for both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county[.]” Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, art. I, § 1.01. On the issue of traffic, the Charter vests the Board of County Commissioners with the power to “[p]rovide and regulate arterial, toll and other roads, bridges, tunnels, and related facilities; . . . and develop and enforce master plans for control of traffic and parking[.]” Id. § 1.01( A)(1). But nothing in the Charter requires the Village to impose land dedications of any size, prohibits the Village from granting permits like the one our Plaintiff has applied for here, or otherwise has anything to say about whether Director Olmsted was (or was not) authorized to approve the Plaintiff's permit… The Legislature's use of the word "writing" in the 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1), which is clearly broader than the narrower phrase "signature card" already present in the statute, means that Beal Bank's holding—that all disclaimers of entireties ownership of joint spousal bank accounts be expressly made on signature cards—was not adopted by the Legislature when it otherwise codified the entireties presumption for such accounts through the amendment. Moreover, as Storey Mountain points out, the Legislature's statutory definition of the term "writing," to include "handwriting, printing, typewriting, and all other methods and means of forming letters and characters upon paper, stone, wood, or other materials," is broad enough to encompass the agreement incorporated by reference into the terms of the signature card in this case. § 1.01(4), Fla. Stat. (2011) (defining the word "writing").Again, this equates to Plaintiff failing to comply with Local Rule 3.01(b). (See id.). Simply put, this Motion is not a legal memorandum. Plaintiff neither cites legal authority nor advances any statements of law to support the requested form of relief. See Local Rule 1.01(d)(10). Although it seems commonsensical, the Court finds it necessary to remind Plaintiff that rules are not merely suggestive.Our precedent supports the same conclusion. In GDG Acquisitions LLC v. Government of Belize , Belize argued that a minister who signed a contract "lacked the authority to waive sovereign immunity." 849 F.3d 1299, 1302 (11th Cir. 2017). Nonetheless, we held that Belize was bound by the contract because it had ratified the waiver. Id. We observed that "[w]hile ‘[o]nly interactions that are within the scope of an agency relationship affect the principal's legal position,’ the principal may also ratify his agent's unauthorized actions, thus becoming bound by their legal consequences." Id. at 1308 (internal citation omitted) (quoting RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY § 1.01 cmt. c). Belize objected that "an agreement that is void ab initio cannot be enforced against a sovereign under a ratification theory because subsequent payments cannot create actual authority that did not exist at the time of the actions." Id. at 1310 (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead of holding that the agreement was not void, we explained that Belize's "argument misapprehends the nature of ratification." Id. "It is precisely on account of the principal's subsequent consent that the prior… Although Local Rule 7.01(c) requires the supplemental motion to be filed within forty-five days of any order determining entitlement, the Undersigned recommends that this deadline be shortened in the interests of justice and judicial economy and efficiency. See M.D. Fla. Rs. 1.01(a) (“PURPOSE. These rules advance efficiency, consistency, convenience, and other interests of justice.”), 1.01(b) (“If reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of these rules, a judge can modify or suspend for all or part of an action the application of any rule, except Rule 1.05(a).”).. . . Code § 1.01(C). Chapter 41-1/2 of the Code covers traffic violations. . . . Instead, reading Lakemoor Municipal Code §§ 1.01, 41-1/2.01, and 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c) together, they contended . . .
. . . Dobbs et al., The Law of Torts § 425 (2d ed. 2019); Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 1.01 (2006). . . . (though the jury rejected the Golans' agency theory at trial), see Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 . . . Restatement (Third) Of Agency §§ 1.01, 6.01. Thus, to the extent Dr. . . .
. . . extremely poor success in obtaining any recovery. 1 ALABAMA WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW AND HANDBOOK § 1.01 . . . causes of action against an employer and co-employees. 1 ALABAMA WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW AND HANDBOOK § 1.01 . . .
. . . patented only if it fits within one of the statutory classes of subject matter." 1 CHISUM ON PATENTS § 1.01 . . .
. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency, § 1.01. . . .
. . . The total population deviation was 1.01%, all four districts were contiguous and considered very compact . . . exception of the district that includes Fire Island, and have maximum population deviations of 1.55% and 1.01% . . .
. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01. . . .
. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 reporter's note c (Am. . . .
. . . AL., MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 259 & nn.4-5 (7th ed. 2016); see also RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY § 1.01 . . .
. . . R. 398-5 at 7 (§ 1.01). . . . R. 398-5 at 16 (§ 6.05), 7 (§ 1.01). . . . Id. at 6-7 (§ 1.01). . . .
. . . Doc. 48 at 21 (citing 1 MILGRIM ON TRADE SECRETS § 1.01 (2018) ). . . . bears the burden of establishing willful and malicious misappropriation. 1 MILGRIM ON TRADE SECRETS § 1.01 . . .
. . . behalf of another person and subject to that person's control are common-law agents as defined in § 1.01 . . .
. . . See 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01[B][1](a) (contract claims alleging "nothing other than derogation of . . . Forest Park Pictures, 683 F.3d at 432 ; see also 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01[B][1](g) ("[A] state law . . .
. . . Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("Complaint") (docket entry 23) ¶¶ 1.01, 5.01, 5.30. . . . Complaint ¶ 1.01. . . .
. . . (PSA § 1.01). . . . (CWC Br. 11 (citing PSA § 1.01) ). . . . (PSA § 1.01). . . .
. . . Restat 3d of Agency, § 1.01 (3rd 2006). . . .
. . . Restatement § 1.01. . . .
. . . Article 1.01(a)(50) defines "Work" as: The entire construction or the various separately identifiable . . .
. . . Aldridge , 642 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY §§ 1.01, 4.01 (2006 . . .
. . . Opinion , at J.A. 2713-14 (collecting district court cases); Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres . . .
. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01[B][1]-[2], at 1-10 to 1-57 (1999) ). . . .
. . . . § 1.01(3). Cardinal thus is a "person." . . .
. . . CBA § 1.01, ECF No. 15-2. . . . CBA § 1.01, ECF No. 15-2. This provision is legal under Ohio law. Ohio Rev. . . .
. . . (Purchase Agreement, p. 1, § 1.01(a), p. 2, § 2.02(a); Eversden Declaration, Exhibit 13 ("Special Warranty . . . (Purchase Agreement, p. 2-3, Section 1.01(b) ). . . . H to Amended Complaint (Purchase Agreement, pp. 1-2, Section 1.01(b) ). . . . Id. at 1-2, Section 1.01(b). . . . Id. , Purchase Agreement, Section 1.01(b). . . .
. . . "Retained Liabilities" to include "the Retained Environmental Liabilities," which are defined in § 1.01 . . .
. . . Feb. 9, 2017) Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres, More or Less in Penn Tp., York County, Pa . . .
. . . and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative") with RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY § 1.01 . . .
. . . Id. at 286, 123 S.Ct. 824 ; see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 cmt. f(1) (2006) ("An essential . . .
. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 cmt. d (2006). . . . matters is that a principal has the "right to control" the agent, see Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 1.01 . . .
. . . Permanent Easements , 907 F.3d 725, 735-37(3d Cir. 2018) ; Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres . . .
. . . Section 1.01(3), Florida Statutes, which establishes how Florida Statutes must be generally construed . . . , business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations ." § 1.01 . . . Courts have interpreted government entities as "persons" under section 1.01. . . . Because section 1.01(3) declares that "all other groups or combinations" are "person[s]," and because . . .
. . . (ECF 22-4 (APA) at Recitals A & B, and Section 1.01). . . . (Id. at Sections 1.01(d), 1.01(h) ). . . .
. . . (Indenture Agreement § 1.01(g).) . . .
. . . distribution among creditors of the debtor.' ") (quoting 1 Collier on Bankruptcy (16th ed. 2015) ¶ 1.01 . . .
. . . (See PEx. 1 Arts. 1.01, 1.02, 2.01, 2.04, 3.01). . . .
. . . The court quoted our decision in Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres . . . . Columbia Gas v. 1.01 Acres , 768 F.3d at 315-16. . . .
. . . See, e.g. , Restatement (Third) Agency § 1.01 (2006) (defining "Agency"); id. at § 2.03 ("Apparent Authority . . .
. . . balances (see id. at 19, 20, 22, and 24): Date Account Balance March 31, 2019 $101.01 April 30, 2016 $1.01 . . .
. . . Law § 11-1201(e) (West 2013); see also Milgrim on Trade Secrets Ch. 1, Definitional Aspects, § 1.01 ( . . .
. . . (Equilon Contract § 1.01, Ex. 1 to Dodd. Decl. in Supp. of Venture's SJ Mot. [372-1] ("Dodd. . . . (Equilon Contract § 1.01 (stating that the purchase and sale of butane is the consideration for the design . . .
. . . independent contractors are agents of their contracting partners, see Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 . . .
. . . . §§ 1.01 et seq. (repealed) ); see also Taj Mahal Travel, Inc. v. . . .
. . . . § 1.01(14), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . See generally Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (2006). . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 ; Edwards v. . . .
. . . In section 1.01(d), under the heading "scope of the agreement," the Master Agreement states that "[t] . . .
. . . RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY § 1.01, cmt. c (2006). . . .
. . . A, §§ 1.01 and 1.04.) . . .
. . . to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations, see, e.g., Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 . . .
. . . App. 2013) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (2006) ). . . .
. . . AFFIRMED The term "Notice of Charge" appears in a different USC policy, "EOP 1.01," concerning harassment . . .
. . . Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 1.01 (2006) ; see also Castle Cheese, Inc. v. . . .
. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (2006). . . .
. . . Stat. 1.01(8) (defining political subdivision to include "all other districts in this state"); Fla. . . .
. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency, § 1.01 cmt. c (Am. . . .
. . . Section 1.01 of the Manual further dictated that, if for any reason the store could not open on time . . . Manual § 1.01. . . .
. . . Richman applied 1.01% to the updated statewide estimate of noncitizens in Kansas, estimating that 1,169 . . .
. . . The EAA Act, §§ 1.01-1.02 (docket no. 119, exh. A). B. . . . More specifically, § 1.01 of the Act provides: The legislature finds that the Edwards Aquifer is a unique . . .
. . . See Note § 1.01. . . . Wells Fargo refers to § 1.01 of the Note, which requires Defendants to pay the entire outstanding principal . . . s Br. at 9 (citing Note § 1.01). . . . See Note §§ 1.01, 1.04. . . .
. . . Ex. 3 ("Lease") §§ 1.01, 5.01).) . . . The relevant provisions state: Section 1.01 Basic Lease Provisions and Definitions [...] . . . (Lease §§ 1.01, 3.04 (emphasis added).) . . . In other words, the Court concludes that the stipulated settlement did not modify §§ 1.01 and 3.01 of . . . (Lease §§ 1.01, 3.01.) . . .
. . . See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY §§ 1.01, 7.03 (2008). . . .
. . . Lareau, Labor and Employment Law § 1.01[1], p. 1-2 (2017) ("Section 7 extended to employees three federally . . .
. . . The phrase "maximum sentence" also means "maximum sentences" based on section 1.01(1), Florida Statutes . . . 1976), and singular versions of words included the plural versions of words for decades, see section 1.01 . . . Because sections 775.021(4) and 1.01(1) had been in existence before the Legislature enacted the statutory . . .
. . . PX-4 at 1, §§ 1.01, 1.02. Id. at 2, § 3, Ex. 1. Each of the Defendants testified to this effect. . . .
. . . . § 1.01(1l)(c)(3). . . . had "serious concerns" about the "repeated resettings of the 180-day clock pursuant to 801 C.M.R. § 1.01 . . .
. . . Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 1.01 (2006). . . .
. . . Cutler applied an average time of 1.01 hours for each inspection Mr. Lopez did. . . .
. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 cmt. c (2006); see also Kirschner v. . . .
. . . Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 1.01 (2006). . . .
. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01(B)(3)(a) (2013) (emphasis added). . . .
. . . . §§ 1.01(A), 1.02(C) ). . . .
. . . say is equal to approximately $4.04 million, and then (2) calculate 25% of this gross sales figure ($1.01 . . .
. . . Sage, 361 F.3d at 828-29 (internal citation omitted); see also Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 . . .
. . . ."); see also 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01(g) (2017) ("[A] state law cause of action for unjust enrichment . . . and not the unlawful retention of the tangible object embodying its work."); 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01 . . .
. . . Feb. 12, 2015) (quoting RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY § 1.01 (2006) ). . . .
. . . Sage, 361 F.3d at 828-29 (internal citation omitted); see also Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 . . .
. . . J. on Statutes of Limitations at 9 (citing 1-1 Milgrim on Trade Secrets § 1.01). See id. . . .
. . . B ("PSA") at § 1.01, ECF No. 114-2.) C. Pre-Litigation History 1. . . . (PSA § 1.01 at 9.) . . . (PSA § 1.01 at 31.) . . . (Id. § 1.01 at 10.) . . . (Id. § 1.01 at 10.) . . .
. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (2006). . . .
. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01[B][1][a][i] (2017) ("preemption should be found absent . . . protected by copyright and therefore do not encounter preemption."), citing Nimmer on Copyright §§ 1.01 . . . that claim of reverse passing off is preempted by the Copyright Act."); see 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01 . . .
. . . Article 1.01 of the Veterans shareholder agreement designates Mr. . . .
. . . J.A. 3540 ¶ EE;, J.A. 7830-31 §§ 1.01, 3.01. The agreement includes the patents-in-suit. . . . J.A. 7830 § 1.01. . . .
. . . disclosure — “trade secrets.require a status of secrecy not required for copyright.” 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01 . . .
. . . . § 1.01(1l)(c)(3). . . . had] serious concerns [about the] repeated resettings of the 180-day clock pursuant to 801 C.M.R. § 1.01 . . . Plaintiff relies on 801 C.M.R. § 1.01(11)(c)(3), which provides: Failure to Issue Final Decision. . . .
. . . .- Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (2006) (“The obligations that a principal owes an agent, specified . . .
. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01[B] (2017). . . .
. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01[B], at 1-14 n.62 (1992)). . . . Nimmer & David Nim-mer, Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01[B][1][a][iii] (2017) (state-law claim for violation . . .
. . . notification from you within 20 days after the Insured first receives a Claim as defined in Section 1.01 . . .
. . . R. 1.04(b), that rule must be read in conjunction with Local Rules 1.03(d) and 1.01(c), which state, . . . inconsistent with Local Rule 1.04(b), the transfer was nonetheless consistent with Local Rules 1.03(d) and 1.01 . . .
. . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (2006). . . .
. . . State, 936 So.2d 585, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (interpreting “includes” in section 1.01(3), Florida Statutes . . .
. . . . § 717f(h); Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres, 768 F.3d 300, 304 (3d Cir. 2014). . . .
. . . Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01[B][l][g] (2003) for the proposition that “a state law . . .
. . . and attached a separate page of additional plan provisions which modified the language in sections 1.01 . . . Section 1.01(a) of the Model Plan: Plan payments. To complete this plan, Debtor shall: a. . . . Objection to section 1.01(a) of the Model Plan: Counsel interpret subsection (a) to require not only . . . length of the plan as reflected in the cumulative terms of the monthly payments provided in section 1.01 . . . Shulman added: “Notwithstanding [s]ection 1.01(a) [of the Model Plan], once the debtor has paid all allowed . . .
. . . SB 4 Section 1.01, Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 752.056 and 752.0565. . . . SB 4 Section 1.01, Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.053(b). . . . The pertinent portion of Section 1.01, Tex’. . . . SB 4 Section 1.01, Tex. . . . SB 4 Section 1.01, Tex. . . .
. . . Section 1.01 of the Digester Contract provides as follows: Design/Builder shall complete all Work as . . . For example, sections 1.01(33) and 1.01(47) define the scope of the construction project and the work . . . required to complete it: Section 1.01(33) of the General Conditions defines the “Project” as “[t]he . . . Section 1.01(2) of the General Conditions defines the “Agreement” as “[t]he written instrument which . . . DVO’s "work” is described in section 1.01 of the SFOA. (Debtor Ex. No. 1, p. 3.) . . . .
. . . License Agreement § 1.01 (eff. Nov. 1, 2006), Def.’s Summ. J. . . .
. . . LiveJournal, Inc., 853 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 1.01 . . . Id. § 1.01. . . .
. . . LiveJournal, Inc. , 873 F.3d 1045, 1054 (9th Cir. 2017) (as amended) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 . . . (quoting Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 cmt. c). . . .