Real Property, Financial Services, & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending November 22, 2019

Real Property Litigation   |   Consumer Finance   |   Title Insurance   |   December 2, 2019
Download Download   
Share Share Page

Real Property Update

  • Foreclosure / Rehearing: Order denying rehearing on summary judgment motion and denying continuance affirmed where (1) affidavit in support of rehearing failed to disclose any genuine issue of material fact and (2) motion for continuance failed to demonstrate diligence and good faith to continue discovery 1601 Bay LLC v. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc’y, FSB, No. 3D19-492 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 20, 2019) (affirming final summary judgment) 

Title Insurance Update

  • No cases of interest to report.

Financial Services Update

  • TCPA / Class Action / Standing: Individuals not on do not call registry, and who never asked company not to be called again, would lack Article III standingCordoba v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 18-12077 (11th Cir. Nov. 15, 2019) (vacating certification order and remanding for further proceedings)
  • TCPA / Class Action / Predominance Inquiry: District court abused its discretion in certifying class that included both class members who requested not to receive further calls and who did not request not to receive further calls without considering whether individualized issue of standing will predominate over common issues, when it appears that large portion of class does not have standing and making such determination for such members will require individualized inquiries Cordoba v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 18-12077 (11th Cir. Nov. 15, 2019) (vacating certification order and remanding for further proceedings)
  • FCRA / Class Action / Standing: Plaintiff job applicant stated cause of action for employer’s failure to provide copy of credit report and written description of rights before taking adverse action, but lacked concrete injury to state claim for disclosure and authorization claimsJones v. Salvation Army, No. 3:18-cv-00804 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2019) (granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss)
  • TCPA / Vicarious Liability: Plaintiff stated plausible claim that T-Mobile was an agent for Subway such that Subway may be vicariously liable for a violation of the TCPAFishman v. Subway Franchisee Advert. Fund Tr., Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-02444 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2019) (denying motion to dismiss for failure to state cause of action)
  • Consumer Protection: Plaintiffs who claimed they would not have purchased tickets to Mayweather-Pacquiao fight had they known of Pacquiao’s shoulder injury did not suffer a legally cognizable injury because they got what they paid for — a full-length regulation fightIn re Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View Litig., No. 17-56366 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2019)  (affirming district court’s dismissal of claims)

©2020 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Subscribe to Publications


The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.