Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...While Defendants attest that Plaintiff knew the deal he was entering, Plaintiff testified that he only learned of the factual circumstances known to Defendants after he paid. On the evidence adduced, Defendants have failed to demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment on this affirmative defense. 6. Fla. Stat. § 213.756 (Counts 2, 3, 4) Defendants argue that Fla. Stat. § 213.756 precludes a cause of action in its entirety when, as here, all taxes collected were remitted to the government (ECF No....

...he purchaser ... The sole remedy in the action is damages measured by the difference between what the retailer, dealer, or vendor collected as a tax, fee, or surcharge and what the retailer, dealer, or vendor paid to the taxing authority. Fla. Stat. § 213.756 (2)(a)....

...ection of taxes in light of allegedly deceptive acts that otherwise violate the statute. The undersigned finds that Defendants have not met their burden in showing entitlement to judgment on this affirmative defense. The plain language of Fla. Stat. § 213.756 does not preclude a finding that the acts were deceptive - whether they kept the taxes or remitted them to the government....

...r collects sales tax from a purchaser, it does so as an involuntary agent of the State, and any sums collected as taxes from purchasers must be remitted to the Florida Department of Revenue. (Id.). Papa John’s further contends that Florida Statute § 213.756 expressly bars the purchaser from recovering from a retailer alleged *1209 overpayments that have been remitted to the Florida Department of Revenue. (Id. at 6). Florida Statute § 213.756, provides in relevant part: (2)(a) In any action by a purchaser against a retailer, dealer, or vendor to obtain a refund of or to otherwise recover taxes, fees, or surcharges collected by the retañer, dealer, or vendor from the purchaser: 2....

...and should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. (Id.). According to Papa John’s, the Plaintiffs’ remedy lies with the Florida Department of Revenue. (Id. at 10). Plaintiffs claim that Papa John’s improperly moves to dismiss based on an affirmative defense — Florida Statute § 213.756— not found on the face of the complaint....

...by 764 F.2d 1400 (11th Cir.1985) (a complaint may only be dismissed based on an affirmative defense “when [the complaint’s] own allegations indicate the existence of an affirmative defense”). Furthermore, Plaintiffs claim that Florida Statute § 213.756 has limited applicability in this case and cannot entirely eliminate Plaintiffs’ claims. (Doc. #21 at 8). According to Plaintiffs, § 213.756 is not a bar to a suit, but rather in a claim by a purchaser against a “retailer, vendor, or dealer” who has “collected” taxes improperly, that single defendant has “an affirmative defense” when it proves that it has “remitted the amount collected” to the Florida Department of Revenue....

...*1210 This Court agrees that Plaintiffs are not required to anticipate affirmative defenses in pleading their complaint. See La Grasta, 358 F.3d at 845 . Therefore, the Court declines to consider Papa John’s affirmative defenses under Florida Statute § 213.756 at this early juncture....

provision for the assessment of a penalty. We find section 213.756, Fla. Stat., inapplicable because we are not

...Similarly, Florida law provides that “[f]unds collected from a purchaser under the representation that they are taxes provided for under the state revenue laws are state funds from the moment of collection and are not subject to refund absent proof that such funds have been refunded previously to the purchaser.” § 213.756(1), Fla....

...for a tax refund to be conditionally approved. Instead, Florida law expressly states that the taxes Oracle collected are “state funds from the moment of collection and are not subject to refund absent proof that such funds have been refunded previously to the purchaser.” § 213.756(1), Fla....

...Similarly, Florida law provides that “[f]unds collected from a purchaser under the representation that they are taxes provided for under the state revenue laws are state funds from the moment of collection and are not subject to refund absent proof that such funds have been refunded previously to the purchaser.” § 213.756(1), Fla....

...for a tax refund to be conditionally approved. Instead, Florida law expressly states that the taxes Oracle collected are “state funds from the moment of collection and are not subject to refund absent proof that such funds have been refunded previously to the purchaser.” § 213.756(1), Fla....

...Similarly, Florida law provides that “[f]unds collected from a purchaser under the representation that they are taxes provided for under the state revenue laws are state funds from the moment of collection and are not subject to refund absent proof that such funds have been refunded previously to the purchaser.” § 213.756(1), Fla....

...for a tax refund to be conditionally approved. Instead, Florida law expressly states that the taxes Oracle collected are “state funds from the moment of collection and are not subject to refund absent proof that such funds have been refunded previously to the purchaser.” § 213.756(1), Fla....

...This Court granted the motion in part and extended the deadline to September 15, 2014. (Doc. # 14). Thereafter, on June 13, 2014, Papa John’s moved to dismiss or alternatively stay this action “because the relief sought—a refund of a purported sales tax overcharge—is barred by section 213.756, Florida Statutes, by the voluntary payment doctrine, and because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the Florida Department of Revenue.” (Doc....

...as the state’s agent. It has no right to retain the monies whether wrongfully or rightfully collected. See Cash v. State, 628 So.2d 1100 (Fla.1993); Department of Revenue v. Rudd, 545 So.2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). In 1991, the Legislature enacted section 213.756, which provides: 213.756....

state funds from the moment of collection.” § 213.756(1), Fla. Stat. A merchant is prohibited from