Refined Sugars Inc. v. S. Commodity Corp.

10 Citing cases

  1. Thomas v. Roach

    165 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,335 times
    Holding argument first raised in reply brief waived

    Thus, while a ยง 1983 action for arrest without probable cause may be barred by the arrestee's conviction at trial or by the arrestee's guilty plea, see Cameron v. Fogarty, 806 F.2d 380, 388-89 (2d Cir. 1986); Roundtree v. City of New York, 778 F. Supp. 614, 619 (E.D.N.Y. 1991), Thomas's ยง 1983 claim predicated on excessive force during his arrest is not barred by his nolo contendere plea to the offense for which he was arrested.See also F.R.E. 410 (stating that evidence of a plea of nolo contendere "is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions"); Refined Sugars Inc. v. Southern Commodity Corp., 709 F. Supp. 1117, 1120 (S.D.Fla. 1988) ("[A] criminal defendant wishing to avoid the collateral effect of a guilty plea has the option of pleading nolo contendre in lieu of pleading guilty."); Lichon v. American Universal Ins. Co., 435 Mich. 408, 459 N.W.2d 288, 293 (Mich. 1990) (holding that despite his arson conviction following a nolo contendre plea building owner could sustain action against in surer for refusal to pay for building owner's losses; stating that "[t]he primary purpose of a plea of nolo contendere is to avoid potential future repercussions which would be caused by the admission of liability, particularly the repercussions in potential future civil litigation"). Moreover, Thomas's statements made during the state court proceeding prior to his plea do not estop him from disputing the officers' version of the facts and arguing that he did not pose a threat to the officers.

  2. PRL U.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Mir Apparel, LLC

    Civil Action 1:21-cv-01936-SDG (N.D. Ga. Sep. 28, 2023)

    โ€œUse of a criminal conviction is well justified because of the higher standard of proof and greater procedural protections attaching to a defendant in a criminal prosecution.โ€ Refined Sugars Inc. v. S. Commodity Corp., 709 F.Supp. 1117, 1120 (S.D. Fla. 1988). More specifically to this case, Section 2320 (the criminal code section to which Khaled Mir pled guilty) โ€œis narrower in scope than the Lanham Actโ€

  3. Searcy v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    Case No: 3:09-cv-13723 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 11, 2013)   Cited 2 times
    Finding that 1.67:1 ratio was appropriate where compensatory damages were remitted to $1 million

    Nevertheless, "it is immaterial whether [the statement] passes through a direct or circuitous channel in reaching [the representee], provided it be made with the intent that it shall reach him and be acted on by the injured party." Refined Sugars Inc. v. Southern Commodity Corp., 709 F. Supp. 1117 (S.D. Fla. 1988) (quoting Harrel v. Branson, 344 So. 2d 604, 606 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)). Defendants' arguments are unavailing. The Engle findings "preclusively establish the Tobacco Companies engaged in a conspiracy to conceal or omit information regarding the health effects of cigarettes and their addictive nature with the intention that smokers and the public would rely on the information to their detriment."

  4. Federal Trade Commission v. 1st Guaranty Mortgage Corp.

    Case No. 09-cv-61840 Seitz/O'Sullivan (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    See Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 340 U.S. 558, 568 (1951) ("It is well established that a prior criminal conviction may work an estoppel in favor of the Government in a subsequent civil proceeding."; Blohm v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 944 F.2d 1542, 1553 (11th Cir. 1993) (collateral estoppel applies where the party and issues are identical and the issue has been decided in the prior proceeding); Tomlinson v. Lefkowitz, 334 F.2d 262, 264 (5th Cir. 1964) ("[A]n issue resolved in favor of the United States in a criminal prosecution may not be contested by the same defendants in a civil suit brought by the Government.") (citation omitted); Refined Sugars, Inc. v. S. Commodity Corp., 709 F. Supp. 1117, 1120 (S.D. Fla. 1988) ("[U]se of a criminal conviction is well justified because of the higher standard of proof and greater procedural protections attaching to a Defendant in a criminal prosecution."). Thus, Lalonde is estopped from challenging the FTC's charge that he violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. ยง 45(a), by failing to honor promises to disburse monies from consumers' refinanced mortgages.

  5. Castaneda v. City of Albuquerque

    No. 1:05-cv-1185 MCA/WPL (D.N.M. Jan. 22, 2008)

    Castaneda admitted to the hired investigators that he had stolen City property and later plead guilty to the same conduct. Though he now claims he did not embezzle from his employer, his guilty plea may preclude him from denying criminal conduct for purposes of subsequent civil litigation. See, e.g., Appley v. West, 832 F.2d 1021, 1026 (7th Cir. 1987) (holding that a guilty plea conclusively establishes for purposes of a subsequent civil proceeding that the defendant engaged in the criminal act for which he was convicted); see also Refined Sugars, Inc. v. S. Commodity Corp., 709 F.Supp. 1117, 1121 (S.D. Fla 1988) (finding defendant's previous guilty plea collaterally estopped him from denying criminal conduct in subsequent civil litigation). Castaneda claims that because Houle authorized payment on the invoices, he must have been responsible for the theft.

  6. Bankatlantic v. Coast to Coast Contractors, Inc.

    22 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (S.D. Fla. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    As to the above-named Defendants, the facts of this case are also clear, because each of these Defendants has, in the course of his guilty plea, admitted the details of his involvement in the conspiracy to defraud BankAtlantic. The law is clear that the Court must accept these facts as proven. Refined Sugars Inc. v. Southern Commodity Corp., 709 F. Supp. 1117, 1120 (S.D.Fla. 1988) ("[A] judgment based on a guilty plea is given the same collateral effect as any other criminal conviction, conclusive of all ideas that would have been resolved by a conviction following a contested jury trial."). Accepting as true Defendants' pleas and admissions, the Court concludes that summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiffs' RICO claims.

  7. F.T.C. v. Wilcox

    926 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D. Fla. 1995)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that a deceptive practice consists of a "material representation or omission that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances"

    The doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) are employed to prevent litigation of matters of law and fact previously adjudicated; they "promote the conservation of judicial resources by preventing needless litigation." Refined Sugars Inc. v. Southern Commodity Corp., 709 F. Supp. 1117, 1120 (S.D.Fla. 1988) (Scott, J.). "Res judicata" refers to the "preclusive effect of a judgment in foreclosing relitigation of matters that were litigated or could have been litigated in an earlier suit." I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson National Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1549 (11th Cir. 1986). "

  8. Pulte Home Corp. v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc.

    804 F. Supp. 1471 (M.D. Fla. 1992)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that law of state of incorporation governs attempts to pierce corporate veil

    To assert a valid cause of action under Florida law based on an allegation of fraud, Pulte must establish: (1) a misrepresentation of material fact or suppression of the truth; (2) [a] knowledge of the representor of the misrepresentation, or [b] representations made by the representor without knowledge as to either truth or falsity, or [c] representations made under circumstances in which the representor ought to have known, if he did not know, of the falsity thereof; (3) an intention that the representor induce another to act on it; and (4) resulting injury to the party acting in justifiable reliance on the representation. Albertson v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 441 So.2d 1146, 1149-50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Refined Sugars, Inc. v. Southern Commodity Corp., 709 F. Supp. 1117, 1121 (S.D.Fla. 1988). "Fraud can be established by proof that [the defendant] made a false representation without knowledge of its truth or falsity, or under circumstances in which he should have known of its falsity."

  9. Korman v. Iglesias

    736 F. Supp. 261 (S.D. Fla. 1990)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that this pleading failure is "excusable neglect" and directing plaintiff to comply with the statute

    Plaintiff has alleged that she had no contract with Star Music, and, although she sets forth an oral agreement with defendant, she does not sue upon it. Florida law does not bar a civil theft claim because a contractual relationship is involved. See Masvidal v. Ochoa, 505 So.2d 555, 556 (Fla.App. 3d Dist. 1987); cf. Refined Sugars, Inc. v. Southern Commodity Corp., 709 F. Supp. 1117, 1122 (S.D.Fla. 1988). In fact, Florida Statutes ยง 812.012(2)(c) intimates otherwise.

  10. In re Jennings

    378 B.R. 687 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that res judicata did not apply where, inter alia, the plaintiff had appeared only as a creditor in the prior proceeding but was appearing as a representative of the estate in the matter before the court.

    The purpose of the doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) is "to prevent litigation of matters of law and fact previously adjudicated; they `promote the conservation of judicial resources by preventing needless litigation.'" Federal Trade Commission v. Wilcox, 926 F.Supp. 1091, 1100-01 (S.D.Fla. 1995) (quoting Refined Sugars, Inc. v. Southern Commodity Corp., 709 F.Supp. 1117, 1120 (S.D.Fla. 1988)). " Res judicata" refers to the "preclusive effect of a judgment in foreclosing relitigation of matters that were litigated or could have been litigated in an earlier suit".