768.734
Capacity to sue.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
768.734 Capacity to sue.—
(1)(a) In any action asserting the right to class action status, the claimant class having capacity to sue shall be limited to residents of this state at the time of the alleged misconduct, except as provided in paragraph (b).
(b)1. Before issuing a class certification order, the court hearing an action asserting the right to class action status may expand a class to include any nonresident whose claim is recognized within the claimant’s state of residence and is not time barred, but whose rights cannot be asserted because the claimant’s state of residence lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant or defendants.
2. In addition, the claimant class may include nonresidents if the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred in or emanated from this state.
(2) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, in order to maintain a class action seeking statutory penalties under chapters 320, 501, 520, and 521, the class action claimants must allege and prove actual damages. This section does not limit or restrict the ability of the Attorney General to bring a class action for the recovery of statutory penalties, if otherwise authorized by law. However, class action claimants may seek to obtain, if appropriate, nonmonetary relief, including injunctive relief, orders or declaratory relief, and orders or judgments enjoining wrongful conduct, regardless of whether the class action claimants can prove any actual monetary damages. This section does not in any way limit or restrict the availability of such nonmonetary relief.
(3) This section does not affect any class action lawsuits involving federal or state civil rights laws.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2006-117.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2023–2024 · leading case: Morris v. Lincare, Inc.
Morris v. Lincare, Inc. (2024)
“As for the other arguments raised, Plaintiff contends it corrected the shotgun pleading issues, the healthcare exception and emergency purpose exception do not apply, and because this putative class action is brought under Rule 23, Fla.”
Morris v. Lincare, Inc. (2023)
“Defendant next argues that Plaintiff’s claims fail because she did not suffer actual damages as required under Fla. Stat. § 768.734 . Lastly, Defendant contends that, at a minimum, the Court should strike the allegations in paragraph 12 that consist of unverified,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.