This case concerns a trademark dispute between the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta (SMOM), a Catholic organization, and the Florida Priory of Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, an ecumenical Christian group, both tracing roots to the medieval Knights Hospitaller. SMOM sued for trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices, claiming the Florida Priory's use of similar names and an unregistered symbol was likely to confuse consumers, while the Florida Priory sought cancellation of SMOM's federal registrations and challenged the marks' protectability. Following a bench trial, the court issued findings of fact on the parties' shared history from the 11th century onward, SMOM's service mark registrations for charitable services (including "Knights of Malta" and a shield-and-cross symbol), and the difficulties of applying trademark law to religious organizations without adjudicating religious authenticity. The court emphasized using standard likelihood-of-confusion factors from trademark precedent rather than resolving disputes over historical or religious legitimacy.
In Magnifico v. Villanueva, Philippine citizens sued staffing companies and their officers, alleging they were recruited through fraud and forced into labor at Florida and New York hotels and country clubs under threats of deportation and other coercion, in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Alien Tort Statute, RICO, Fair Labor Standards Act, and related state laws. The defendants moved to dismiss the ATS and RICO claims, arguing that the ATS does not cover torts occurring in the United States and that the TVPRA preempts such claims. The court denied the motion, holding that ATS claims for human trafficking and forced labor—recognized as universal international norms—remain viable even for conduct within the U.S., that the TVPRA supplements rather than displaces ATS remedies, and that the RICO allegations, including predicate acts of forced labor and trafficking, were sufficiently pleaded under federal pleading standards.
immigrationcriminal lawlabor & employmentcivil rights
Maryland Casualty Company filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend its insured, Florida Atlantic Orthopedics, against claims brought by the family of a patient who died after complications during and after an orthopedic surgical procedure performed at the facility. The underlying state-court complaint alleged premises liability, failure to maintain appropriate emergency policies and procedures, and negligent retention and supervision. The district court granted Maryland Casualty’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy’s professional-services and health-care-services exclusions applied because the patient’s injuries arose directly out of the rendering of medical treatment. Under Florida law, an insurer owes no duty to defend when the factual allegations fall squarely within a policy exclusion, regardless of how the claims are labeled in the complaint.
The case involved plaintiff Richard Cohen, who leased a vehicle in New York, paid sales tax there, then moved to Florida where the defendant lessor World Omni collected use tax on remaining payments without crediting the prior tax. Cohen sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a dormant Commerce Clause violation from the double taxation burden. The court granted World Omni's motions for summary judgment and denied Cohen's partial summary judgment motion. It held that World Omni, a private corporation, did not act under color of state law merely by following Florida tax statutes when collecting the use tax. The court also noted statute of limitations barriers to the claim.
The case involves a dispute between Armor Screen Corporation as plaintiff and Storm Catcher, Inc. along with related defendants, in which the defendants moved to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion and disqualifying Mr. Jerold Schneider and his law firm from representing the plaintiff. The core reasoning was that Schneider had acquired confidential information, including defense strategy, during a June 2008 meeting with the defendants' former counsel while considering serving as an expert, even though he was never retained by the defendants. This created an unfair disadvantage under Florida Bar Rules 4-1.9 and 4-1.10, outweighing the plaintiff's interest in retaining chosen counsel to preserve ethical standards and the integrity of the proceeding.
The case involved a former assistant store manager and store manager at Bennett Auto Supply suing the company and a supervisor for alleged overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff qualified for the administrative exemption from overtime requirements. The court granted the motion, concluding that the plaintiff's primary duties consisted of counter sales, customer assistance in selecting parts, and exercising discretion and independent judgment on matters of significance such as resolving customer issues and store operations. Summary judgment was also entered for the individual defendant because any liability would be derivative of the corporate defendant's.
