Kenneth L. Ryskamp

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.

business & regulatoryreligious liberty

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.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liability

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.

taxescivil rightsfederal power

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.

procedure

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.

labor & employment

This case involves a breach of contract claim by Dr. Daniel Weiss against Standard Insurance Company regarding long-term disability benefits under a policy issued in 2000. The plaintiff, an electrophysiologist, alleged he became disabled due to back and neck pain that prevented him from performing the material duties of his occupation with reasonable continuity, but the evidence showed he continued working reduced hours after moving to Israel in 2004. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact as to disability because the plaintiff's medical expert opinion relied on incomplete facts about his actual work performance and failed to establish inability to meet the policy's requirements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a medical specialist suing her former employer, a pulmonary physician, under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged overtime violations, seeking back wages and related damages. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the business did not involve interstate commerce as required by the FLSA, prompting the court to issue an order to show cause requiring the plaintiff to provide supporting facts. The magistrate judge determined that the plaintiff's counsel had failed to investigate the claim adequately before filing, which constituted bad faith, and recommended sanctions in the form of attorney's fees. The district court adopted the report and recommendation, granting the defendant partial attorney's fees of $7,170 assessed against the plaintiff's counsel, based on the court's inherent authority to impose sanctions while exercising restraint.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over insurance claims for hurricane damage to property owned by Sandalwood Estates Homeowner’s Association, which had a policy with Empire Indemnity Insurance Company. Sandalwood sued Zurich American Insurance Company, Empire’s parent, alleging bad faith in claims handling under Florida statutes prohibiting unfair settlement practices. Zurich moved to dismiss, arguing there was no direct contractual relationship with Sandalwood and that Sandalwood failed to meet statutory prerequisites by not filing a Civil Remedy Notice against Zurich. The court granted the motion, finding that the policies showed the contractual relationship was only with Empire and that the notice requirement was not satisfied as to Zurich. As a result, Zurich was dismissed from the action.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute between two insurers over coverage for a 2005 car accident in Florida that left Allen Roberts a quadriplegic. Roberts had sued Albertson's, its dry-cleaning partners, and the driver (a BHA employee making a pickup for Albertson's stores); the case settled for $2.7 million after Albertson's and Discover (Albertson's auto insurer) funded most of the payment. Discover sued Lexington (Albertson's commercial general liability insurer) for declaratory relief, contribution, and subrogation, arguing Lexington should have contributed because its policy covered the underlying claims. The court granted summary judgment to Lexington, holding that coverage was barred by the policy's auto exclusion (since the injury arose from the use of an automobile attributable to Albertson's) and because the alleged dry-cleaning joint venture was not a named insured in the policy declarations.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In this case, a former employee sued his employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and related remedies, alleging he worked as a dispatcher. The plaintiff moved to strike several of the defendant's affirmative defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The court granted the motion in part, striking the third, seventh, tenth, and sixteenth affirmative defenses, with leave to amend most of them to provide sufficient factual support or clarification under Rule 8(a) pleading standards and to align with FLSA requirements, such as avoiding improper waivers of statutory rights or impermissible set-offs that would reduce wages below minimums; the sixteenth defense was stricken without leave to amend because attorney fees and costs are mandatory under the statute. The core reasoning centered on ensuring affirmative defenses are not conclusory, are legally viable under the FLSA, and give adequate notice, while also denying an unrelated request for fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a former medical assistant suing her employer, a doctor, under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages, alleging she worked more than forty hours per week. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the FLSA did not apply because the plaintiff failed to establish either individual or enterprise coverage under the statute. The reasoning centered on the lack of evidence that the defendant's medical practice engaged in interstate commerce, as contacts with out-of-state patients were local in nature, and the employee's use of telephone, internet, and credit cards did not constitute regular engagement in interstate activities.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case was a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) brought by six named employees against TBC Corp. and related entities to recover unpaid overtime compensation. Defendants moved for sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel, the Shavitz Law Group, alleging improper direct solicitation of potential opt-in plaintiffs in violation of Florida Bar ethics rules. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, granting the sanctions motion. It barred the firm from representing or collecting fees from any current or future opt-in plaintiffs who had not worked with the named plaintiffs, ordered the firm to create a written solicitation policy, referred the matter to the Florida Bar, and required reimbursement of defendants' costs. The court reasoned that these measures were necessary both to sanction the unethical conduct and to ensure future compliance with ethical obligations in the litigation.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case was a patent infringement suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271 in which plaintiff International Seaway Trading Corp. alleged that defendants Walgreens and Touchsport imported and sold footwear infringing its design patents D529,263, D545,032, and D545,033. Defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds that the patents were invalid. The court granted the motion after finding no genuine issues of material fact, holding that each patent was anticipated by prior art patent D517,789 (the Crocs design) under the ordinary observer test that considers the overall visual impression in light of the prior art, including similarities in hole placement, sole design, and heel strap.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Louis-Charles sued defendant Sun-Sentinel Co. under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) alleging failure to pay overtime wages for his work as a District Coordinator, which included receiving, counting, and delivering newspapers as well as paperwork for carriers. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's duties fell under the newspaper carrier exemption in 29 U.S.C. § 213(d), which exempts employees engaged in the delivery of newspapers to consumers from FLSA overtime requirements. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiff was engaged in newspaper delivery to consumers, and thus exempt, based on the statutory language and evidence of his delivery activities. The decision turned on a narrow interpretation of the exemption without imposing a primary duty requirement.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff suing her former employer under the FLSA and Florida statutes for unpaid wages, alleging she was an employee rather than an independent contractor. After granting summary judgment to the defendants on all counts, the court considered their motion for attorney's fees as prevailing parties. The court applied the FLSA standard requiring bad faith by the plaintiff and found none, denying fees against her personally, but awarded fees against plaintiff's counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for unreasonably multiplying proceedings after discovery closed. It calculated reasonable fees at $250 per hour for 93.5 hours, resulting in an award of $23,375 payable by counsel.

labor & employmentprocedure

In United States v. Beckett, the defendant was charged with computer-related crimes including transmission of pornography and threats involving the online solicitation of minor victims through MySpace and other services. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's report and denied the defendant's motions to dismiss the indictment as moot, to suppress subscriber information obtained from providers via exigent circumstance letters, and to suppress evidence from the execution of a state search warrant on the defendant's computer and residence. The court found that exigent circumstances justified the letters because victims faced imminent harm, the providers' terms allowed cooperation with law enforcement, and the warrant sufficiently described the computer search by incorporating an affidavit detailing forensic examination of files for evidence of the enumerated crimes.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an FLSA claim by plaintiff Simon to recover overtime wages from defendants after a default judgment was entered in his favor. As the prevailing party, Simon moved for an award of attorney's fees and costs, which the FLSA requires courts to grant. The court partially granted the motion after reviewing the requested fees under the lodestar framework, determining reasonable hourly rates based on market data and its own expertise while reducing the compensable hours. Hours were disallowed for time spent attempting to settle the claim without court approval as required by Eleventh Circuit precedent, for inefficient trial preparation when a summary judgment motion could have been used, and for administrative mistakes. The court ultimately awarded $7,527.50 in fees and $450 in costs.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Murray v. Playmaker Services, LLC, the plaintiff brought claims against her former employer for unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as breach of an oral contract, arising from her work as a sales representative selling and installing playground equipment from January to March 2005. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff was an independent contractor or exempt outside salesperson not covered by the FLSA and that no enforceable contract existed. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, and entered final judgment for the defendants, reasoning that the economic realities of the relationship showed the plaintiff was an independent contractor due to factors such as her control over her work methods, lack of direct supervision, and ability to work for others, and that no contract was formed because the plaintiff never accepted the defendant's offers regarding payment of commissions or expenses.

labor & employment

This case concerns a Florida condominium association's claims against its insurer, QBE, for over $1.5 million in unpaid property damage from Hurricane Wilma in 2005 under a policy issued in February of that year. The plaintiff sought declaratory judgment on policy validity and coverage, alleged breach of contract for nonpayment and breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing, and claimed violations of Florida statutes regarding hurricane deductibles and co-insurance provisions. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss these counts, ruling that the declaratory relief request did not need to specify a statutory basis, the good faith claim was distinct from premature first-party bad faith, and the policy allegations supported the statutory violations. The decision applied federal procedural standards for jurisdiction and state substantive law on insurance contracts, while also denying a subsequent motion for reconsideration.

business & regulatoryproperty