Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...rs effected through Fedwire. Therefore, the district court analyzed the claims in Grossman’s complaint exclusively using Subpart B of Regulation J, which applies U.C.C. Article 4A as the governing statute for Fedwire funds transfers. See 12 C.F.R. § 210.25 (b)(1) (providing also that Regulation J controls in the event of inconsistencies with U.C.C....

...DISCUSSION The district court held, and the parties agree, that the provisions of Regulation J exclusively apply to the fund transfer in this case because it was effected by the use of Fedwire, the Federal Reserve Banks’ wire-transfer system. See 12 C.F.R. § 210.25-32 . Regulation J applies U.C.C. Article 4A to wire transfers conducted using Fedwire. See 12 C.F.R. § 210.25 (b)(1); Appendix B to Subpart B to Part 210 4 ; see also Donmar Enters., Inc....

...After Barnett Bank merged into Nationsbank, Nationsbank was substituted as the defendant in this case. To avoid confusion, we will refer only to Nations-bank in this opinion. 3 . 55 Fed.Reg. 40,791 (1990) (as amended Oct. 5, 1990) (codified at 12 C.F.R. Part 210 (Sub-part B & Appendix B)). 4 . Subsection 210.25(b)(1) states that Subpart B to Part 210 (the codification of Regulation J) "incorporates the provisions of Article 4A set forth in appendix B to this subpart....

...Because the wire transfers at issue here occurred via the Federal Reserve Wire Transfer Network, or “Fedwire,” which is owned and operated by the Federal Reserve Banks, Subpart B of Federal Reserve Regulation J (“Regulation J”), 12 C.F.R. §§ 210.25-210.32, applies. See id. § 210.25(a) (“This subpart provides rules to govern funds transfers through Fedwire . . . .”). Moreover, Regulation J “incorporates the provisions of Article 4A” of the U.C.C. as set forth in the Regulation, id. § 210.25(b)(1), and “governs the rights and obligations of,” inter alia, “parties to a funds transfer any part of which is carried 12 out through Fedwire. . . . “ Id. § 210.25(b)(2)(v)....

...tobacco wraps” because of a court decision, but would continue taxing “whole leaf” tobacco wraps as “tobacco products.” The Department interpreted whole leaf wraps to qualify as “loose tobacco suitable for smoking” under the definition of “tobacco products.” § 210.25(12), Fla....

...her tobacco products” tax to tobacco wraps. Florida’s blunt wrap distributors were not pleased. Distributor Brandy’s Products, Inc., challenged the State’s tax on the basis that its wraps were not taxable “tobacco products” as defined by § 210.25, Florida Statutes....

...rulemaking wasn’t required. In his view, the Department’s memo applied the plain meaning of a clear and unambiguous statute to Grabba-Leaf’s wraps: “[I]t is readily apparent that whole leaf, non- 2 homogenized cigar wraps meet [§ 210.25(12)’s] statutory definition of loose tobacco suitable for smoking.” Grabba-Leaf timely appealed this final order. II. We review the ALJ’s conclusions of law in this unadopted rule challenge de novo....

...Grabba-Leaf doesn’t argue that its wraps cannot be taxed as “tobacco products” under the statute (not yet at least). Rather, it argues that the Department must initiate rulemaking before applying that tax to its whole leaf tobacco wraps, because it isn’t clear that they are “loose tobacco suitable for smoking.” § 210.25(12), Fla....

...The parties’ arguments in this case focus on this rulemaking exception. We must decide whether the Department’s 2016 memorandum, setting forth its post-Brandy’s intention to tax only whole leaf blunt wraps, amounts to a simple reiteration of what is “readily apparent” from the text of § 210.25(12). B. After this court’s decision in Brandy’s, the Department issued a memorandum interpreting our opinion to prohibit the taxation of blunt wraps made partly of tobacco, but not of whole leaf wraps consisting completely of tobacco....

...1 Rather, it viewed its 1 The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco possesses 4 policy as reiterating the court’s decision and as carrying out its obligation to tax “loose tobacco suitable for smoking.” § 210.25(12), Fla....

...2 The Department considers itself free to forgo rulemaking because its policy is “readily apparent from its literal reading” of the statute. We aren’t convinced, however, that its authority to tax whole leaf blunt wraps is readily apparent from the statute. Whether and how § 210.25(12)’s “tobacco products” definition applies to blunt wraps is not an easy question....

...taxation of blunt wraps across the board: authority to adopt rules to enforce chapter 210, part II’s provisions for taxing loose tobacco products. See § 210.75, Fla. Stat. 2 On July 1, 2016, the definition of “tobacco products” was moved, without being amended, from subsection 210.25(11) to subsection 210.25(12)....

...chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps; clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco, and other kinds and forms of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing; but “tobacco products” does not include cigarettes . . . or cigars. § 210.25(12), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). 3 Blunt wraps weren’t taxed as “loose tobacco suitable for smoking” until 2009, some 24 years after § 210.25(12) was first enacted. See Ch. 85-141, §§ 1, 5, at 1023-29, Laws of Fla. (1985). 5  [W]e agree with the ALJ that ‘giving the words used in section 210.25(11) their plain and ordinary signification, the definition ....

...tween blunt wrap products. It took the position in its memorandum that Brandy’s only applied to “homogenized” blunt wraps, and not to “whole leaf” blunt wraps. This differentiation between blunt wraps was novel for purposes of interpreting § 210.25(12) and Brandy’s, because neither draws a composition-based distinction between blunt wrap products....

...“seek clarification from the product manufacturer if necessary.” We think this new approach required agency rulemaking. Not only did it represent a tax policy change for the Department, but the Department’s interpretation isn’t clearly correct under § 210.25(12), as might excuse it from having to satisfy rulemaking requirements....

...further manufactured from tobacco leaves. “[S]nuff; snuff flour; cavendish; plug and twist tobacco; fine cuts and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps; clippings, cuttings, sweepings” do not consist of whole leaves, but of cultivated tobacco fragments. § 210.25(12), Fla. Stat. Similarly, the prototypical “loose tobacco” product, on which the ALJ and parties alike agree is “loose tobacco,” is filler tobacco. Like the other stuff in § 210.25(12), filler tobacco is shredded and chopped from cultivated tobacco leaves for smoking in a pipe, blunt wrap, or other suitable vessel....

...which can be used for smoking.” 26 U.S.C. § 5702(o) similarly identifies filler tobacco separately from wraps—“tobacco which . . . is suitable for use . . . for making cigarettes and cigars [and] wrappers thereof”—in defining what are federally taxable tobacco products. In contrast, the definition in § 210.25 doesn’t mention tobacco leaves or wraps, but only “loose tobacco.” That countervailing arguments exist that whole-leaf blunt wraps are “loose” tobacco suitable for smoking is not the test for an exemption from rulemaking. Rather, the test is whether an agency statement reiterates a law, or declares what is “readily apparent” from the text of a law. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co., 156 So. 3d at 532. Because § 210.25(12) does not clearly include whole leaf tobacco wraps, we conclude that the Department cannot by memorandum extend the statutory definition to cover them and disregard its rulemaking obligations. Finally, we recognize the limits of our holding and of the issue presented here....

...suitable for smoking.” 6 And we needn’t do that in order to resolve Grabba Leaf’s unadopted rule challenge. Rather, we more modestly conclude that the Department’s memo—which recognizes two different classes of blunt wraps, one taxable and one not—does not simply reiterate § 210.25(12)’s text....

...ely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. 6 We don’t finally resolve the “loose” issue here as relates to whole-leaf wraps, or whether whole-leaf blunt wraps can be considered “suitable for smoking” under § 210.25(12)....

...s in Brandy’s, the analysis properly begins with the plain language of the taxing statute. The “other tobacco products” or OTP tax (i.e., not cigarettes, taxed in a separate part of the statute; or cigars, not taxed), is imposed in what is now section 210.25(12), Florida 10 Statutes (2018) (formerly subsection (11)), using language unchanged since its enactment in 1985 (emphasis added): (12) “Tobacco products” means loose tobacco suitab...

...��tobacco products.’”) (emphasis added); see also id. at 132 (“Accordingly, tobacco that is densely bound together to make a solid, uniform, cohesive product like the blunt wraps at issue in this case is not ‘loose tobacco’ for purposes of section 210.25(11).”) (emphasis added)....

...cause of the material factual differences between the nature of the manufactured products at issue in Brandy’s and the natural whole tobacco leaves at issue here. Brandy’s Products succeeded in establishing that its product was not taxable under section 210.25(11) (now (12)), by carefully distinguishing its product based on its physical characteristics as a manufactured blend of inseparable wood pulp, tobacco pulp, and gums....

...tobacco-infused paper product at issue in Brandy’s and the whole leaves of tobacco at issue here. We noted in Brandy’s that “[t]he agency’s decision to start taxing blunt wraps was not based on a change in Florida law as the definition of ‘tobacco products’ in section 210.25(11) has remained unchanged since its original enactment in 1985.” 188 So....

...c Beverages and Tobacco (AB & T), that requires it to pay $47,649.45, plus interest, in Florida excise taxes to AB & T. In this case of first impression, we are called upon to interpret the phrase “wholesale sales price” as it appears in section 210.25(13), Florida Statutes (2009), and as it appears within the context of Florida’s “Tax on Tobacco Products Other Than Cigarettes or Cigars” (OTP)....

...f such tobacco products.”). 3 Wholesale sales price is a defined term under the statute. It is “the established price for which a manufacturer sells a tobacco product to a distributor, exclusive of any diminution by volume or other discounts.” § 210.25(13)....

...The phrase “established price for which a manufacturer sells a tobacco product to a distributor” is given its plain meaning by the statute’s own definitions. The statute defines a “manufacturer” as someone who “manufactures and sells tobacco products.” § 210.25(5). Thus, the definition of manufacturer excludes companies that are solely domestic distributors. This is clear from the statute’s separate definition for “distributors.” See § 210.25(4)(a) (defining the applicable definition for “distributor” as “[a]ny person engaged in the business of selling tobacco products in this state who brings, or causes to be brought, into this state from outside the state any tobacco products for sale”)....

...ithin the context of the sentence. The established price is for the sale of the tobacco product. The various other distributor invoice costs for reimbursement of federal excise tax, shipping costs, and other charges, are not part of the tobacco. See § 210.25(11) (defining “tobacco products”)....

...See § 120.68(7)(d). Reversed. WALLACE, J., and BAUMANN, HERBERT, JR., Associate Judge, Concur. . For ease of reference, we will refer to Florida's "Tax on Tobacco Products Other Than Cigarettes or Cigars” as the "Other Tobacco Products” tax. See §§ 210.25-.75....

...As pointed out by Micjo in its brief, Hookah tobacco is a popular form of tobacco in Middle Eastern countries. It is typically flavored and smoked through a hookah, a large water pipe. . The parties do not dispute the fact that hookah tobacco is subject to these sections. See §210.25(11) (defining "tobacco products” under the OTP tax)....

...by Appellee (the agency) erroneously determined that the cigar wraps – or, as they are colloquially known, “blunt wraps” – distributed by Appellant constitute “loose tobacco suitable for smoking” under the definition of “tobacco products” in section 210.25(11), Florida Statutes....

...1, 2009, but the agency did not start assessing tobacco taxes and surcharges on blunt wraps until this date. The agency’s decision to start taxing blunt wraps was not based on a change in Florida law as the definition of “tobacco products” in section 210.25(11) has remained unchanged since its original enactment in 1985....

...forms of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing; but “tobacco products” does not 3  include cigarettes, as defined by s. 210.01(1), or cigars. § 210.25(11), Fla....

...tatute.”); Micjo, 4 Inc. v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Regulation, 78 So. 3d 124, 126-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (rejecting the agency’s interpretation of the definition of “wholesale sales price” in section 210.25(13) because the interpretation was inconsistent with the plain language of the statute). The statutory phrase “loose tobacco suitable for smoking” is clear and unambiguous, and we agree with the ALJ that “giving the words used in section 210.25(11) their plain and ordinary signification, the definition ....

...Mar. 14, 2016). Accordingly, tobacco that is densely bound together to make a solid, uniform, cohesive product like the blunt wraps at issue in this case is not “loose tobacco” for 5 purposes of section 210.25(11). In reaching this decision, we have not overlooked the agency’s argument that the phrase “loose tobacco suitable for smoking” should be broadly construed to encompass any product comprised of the cured and de-stemmed parts of a tobacco leaf that is intended to be inhaled by smoking....

...reasons for imposing the taxes and surcharges under part II of chapter 210 on all products suitable for smoking that are made in whole or part of cured, de-stemmed tobacco,3 only the Legislature has the authority to amend the definition of “tobacco products” in section 210.25(11) to accomplish that end....

...care costs associated with smoking and other uses of tobacco. 4 It appears that the issue framed by this case is already on the Legislature’s radar because bills were introduced in 2015 and 2016 to amend the definition of “tobacco products” in section 210.25(11) to definitively include “products, including wraps, made in whole or part from tobacco leaves for use in ....

...1st DCA 1992). A “weapon” is an instrument that is designed and constructed for use as a weapon, or, if the instrument is capable of being used as a weapon, the defendant used, threatened to use, or intended to use the instrument as a weapon. Give if tobacco product is alleged. § 210.25(11) Fla....

...d through Fedwire. Therefore, the district court analyzed the claims in Grossman's complaint exclusively using Subpart B of Regulation J, which applies U.C.C. Article 4A as the governing statute for Fedwire funds transfers. See 12 C.F.R. § 210.25(b)(1) (providing also that Regulation J controls in the event of inconsistencies with U.C.C....

...Part 210 (Subpart B & Appendix B)).  The district court held, and the parties agree, that the provisions of Regulation J exclusively apply to the fund transfer in this case because it was effected by the use of Fedwire, the Federal Reserve Banks' wire-transfer system. See 12 C.F.R. § 210.25-32. Regulation J applies U.C.C. Article 4A to wire transfers conducted using Fedwire. See 12 C.F.R. § 210.25(b)(1); Appendix B to Subpart B to Part 2104; see also Donmar Enters., Inc....

...The beneficiary's bank is "the bank identified in the payment order in which an account of the beneficiary is to be credited pursuant to the order or which otherwise is to make payment to the beneficiary if the order does not provide for payment to an 4 Subsection 210.25(b)(1) states that Subpart B to Part 210 (the codification of Regulation J) "incorporates the provisions of Article 4A set forth in appendix B to this subpart....

...transfers effected through Fedwire. Therefore, the district court analyzed the claims in Grossman’s complaint exclusively using Subpart B of Regulation J, which applies U.C.C. Article 4A as the governing statute for Fedwire funds transfers. See 12 C.F.R. § 210.25(b)(1) (providing also that Regulation J controls in the event of inconsistencies with U.C.C....

...nd transfer in this case because it was effected by the use of Fedwire, the Federal Reserve Banks’ wire-transfer system. See 12 C.F.R. § 216.25-32. Regulation J applies U.C.C. Article 4A to wire transfers conducted using Fedwire. See 12 C.F.R. § 210.25(b)(1); Appendix B to Subpart B to Part 2104; see also Donmar Enters. Inc. v. Southern Nat’l Bank, 64 F.3d 944, 948 (4th Cir. 1995). We address Nationsbank’s duty under Regulation J and U.C.C. Article 4A once Grossman requested the fund transfer, so that we can determine whether 4 Subsection 210.25(b)(1) states that Subpart B to Part 210 (the codification of Regulation J) “incorporates the provisions of Article 4A set forth in appendix B to this subpart....

...1st DCA 1992). A “weapon” is an instrument that is designed and constructed for use as a weapon, or, if the instrument is capable of being used as a weapon, the defendant used, threatened to use, or intended to use the instrument as a weapon. Give if tobacco product is alleged. § 210.25(11), Fla....

...1stst DCA 1992). A “weapon” is an instrument that is designed and constructed for use as a weapon, or, if the instrument is capable of being used as a weapon, the defendant used, threatened to use, or intended to use the instrument as a weapon. Give if tobacco product is alleged. § 210.25(11), Fla....

...referred to as “Other Tobacco Products,” or “OTP”)—taxes and surcharges paid by the distributors of those products. See §§ 210.276, 210.30, Fla. Stat. By statutory definition, tobacco products subject to this taxation include “loose tobacco suitable for smoking.” § 210.25(12), Fla....

...“loose tobacco suitable for smoking” as the phrase is “commonly understood.” ABT adopted the ALJ’s recommended order as final on November 29, 2023. Global now appeals, contending primarily that its hookah product is neither “loose” nor “suitable for smoking,” rendering section 210.25(12), Florida Statutes, inapplicable to its product and entitling it to a refund of the OTP taxes and surcharges paid. II A Sections 210.276 and 210.30, Florida Statutes, set forth the OTP tax and surcharge at issue here....

...lippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco, and other kinds and forms of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing; but “tobacco products” does not include cigarettes, as defined by s. 210.01(1), or cigars. § 210.25(12), Fla....

...LAW at 36–38 (describing textualist exercise in gleaning purpose from statute’s text). We can see this purpose also in the latter portion of the same definition, which identifies twelve additional tobacco products subject to the OTP tax. § 210.25(12), Fla....

...EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 779 (2022) (Kagan, J., dissenting). Like Justice Kagan, the majority seems to be coming full circle on the issue of textualism. I agree with my colleagues that the legislature probably intended to tax all “other” tobacco products. But the text of section 210.25(12) falls short of that intention....

...lippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco, and other kinds and forms of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing; but “tobacco products” does not include cigarettes, as defined by s. 210.01(1), or cigars. § 210.25(12), Fla....

...sovereign, is still a duty of pure statutory creation and taxes may be collected only within the clear definite boundaries recited by statute[.] 195 So. 2d at 198. Because hookah tobacco does not clearly fall within the definition in section 210.25(12), any ambiguity or doubt, if any actually exists, must be resolved in Appellant taxpayer’s favor....

...The Appellants didn’t ad- vance any claims against Giancarlo Paredes, the man who allegedly changed the Appellants’ password. 5 The Fourth Amended Complaint had three other counts. First, the Appel- lants said that BB&T breached the CBSA and TMA. Second, they asserted that BB&T had violated Regulation J, 12 C.F.R. § 210.25—which governed wire transfers over the Fedwire Funds Service—by allowing the fraudulent wire transfers....

...1stst DCA 1992). A “weapon” is an instrument that is designed and constructed for use as a weapon, or, if the instrument is capable of being used as a weapon, the defendant used, threatened to use, or intended to use the instrument as a weapon. Give if tobacco product is alleged. § 210.25(11), Fla....

...1st DCA 1992). A “weapon” is an instrument that is designed and constructed for use as a weapon, or, if the instrument is capable of being used as a weapon, the defendant used, threatened to use, or intended to use the instrument as a weapon. Give if tobacco product is alleged. § 210.25(11), Fla....