Brexendorf v. Bank of Am., N.A.

8 Citing cases

  1. Blanco v. Bank of Am.

    Case No. 8:17-cv-02626-T-02SPF (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2020)

    But to the extent that Plaintiffs allege BOA charged them improper inspection fees prior to any alleged false statements regarding HAMP, those claims are barred by the statute of limitations. See Brexendorf v. Bank of Am., N.A., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1263 (M.D. Fla. 2018). To the extent the Plaintiffs may have argued that they were part of the George class (George v. Urban Settlement Services, 1:13-cv-01819-PAB-KLM (D. Colo)) and that the case should be tolled under American Pipe & Constr. Co., 414 U.S. 538 (1974), they raised no such argument in their response to BOA's motion for summary judgment, despite BOA specifically arguing why the Plaintiffs are not members of the George class and that American Pipe does not provide tolling.

  2. Cruz v. Bank of Am.

    Case No. 8:17-cv-02627-T-02SPF (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2020)

    As such the statute of limitations for those inspections began when the fees were incurred by the Plaintiffs and they reasonably could have checked that they were being charged. See Brexendorf v. Bank of Am., N.A., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1263 (M.D. Fla. 2018). This was long before the statute of limitations began to run on November 3, 2013.

  3. Zenteno v. Bank of Am.

    Case No. 8:17-cv-02591-T-02TGW (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    As such the statute of limitations for those inspections began when the fees were incurred by the Plaintiffs and they reasonably could have checked that they were being charged. See Brexendorf v. Bank of Am., N.A., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1263 (M.D. Fla. 2018). This was long before the statute of limitations began to run on November 1, 2013.

  4. Nino v. Flagstar Bank

    No. 18-1503 (6th Cir. Mar. 6, 2019)   Cited 6 times

    77 Wilson, F. Supp. 3d at 1221. See, e.g., Brexendorf v. Bank of Am., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1266 (M.D. Fla. 2018); Wilson v. EverBank, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1202, 1221 (S.D. Fla. 2015); Sovereign Bonds Exch. LLC v. Federal Republic of Germany, 899 F. Supp. 2d 1304, 1315-16 (S.D. Fla. 2010); Caban v. Morgan Chase & Co., 606 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1371 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Bankers Tr. Co. v. Basciano, 960 So. 2d 773, 778 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007). Moreover, those cases that have held that the activity at issue must also be subject to the federal regulatory authority have done so with little explanation, and in reliance on inapposite precedent.

  5. Stockley v. Nissan of N. Am., Inc.

    701 F. Supp. 3d 682 (M.D. Tenn. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Courts, however, have typically held that the FDUTPA statute of limitations runs from the time of the plaintiff's actual injury, not the time of the plaintiff's "delayed discovery" of that injury. See Brexendorf v. Bank of Am., N.A., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1264 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (citing Marlborough Holdings Grp., Ltd. v. Azimut-Benetti, Spa, Platinum Yacht Collection No. Two, Inc., 505 F. App'x 899, 906 (11th Cir. 2013)). The core of the plaintiffs' allegations, moreover, is not simply that any individual CVT malfunctioned on a particular day, but that each CVT was defective at the time of sale.

  6. Lalli v. FCA US, LLC (In re FCA US LLC Monostable Elec. Gearshift Litig.)

    Case Number 16-md-02744 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2020)

    However, Florida courts have held that the delayed discovery rule does not apply to claims under the FDUTPA. Brexendorf v. Bank of Am., N.A., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1263 (M.D. Fla. 2018) ("Unlike fraud actions, the Delayed Discovery Doctrine does not apply to FDUTPA claims, even those founded on fraud.") (citing Marlborough Holdings Grp., Ltd. v. Azimut-Benetti, Spa, Platinum Yacht Collection No. Two, Inc., 505 F. App'x 899, 906 (11th Cir. 2013) ("The delayed discovery rule [is] inapplicable to [] FDUTPA claims, as the FDUTPA is a statute and actions under it are 'founded on a statutory liability.'"

  7. Fca U.S. LLC v. Fca United States, LLC (In re)

    446 F. Supp. 3d 218 (E.D. Mich. 2020)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the rationale for pre-suit notice articulated by the Florida Court of Appeals supports requiring notice to car manufacturer

    However, Florida courts have held that the delayed discovery rule does not apply to claims under the FDUTPA. Brexendorf v. Bank of Am., N.A. , 319 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1263 (M.D. Fla. 2018) ("Unlike fraud actions, the Delayed Discovery Doctrine does not apply to FDUTPA claims, even those founded on fraud.") (citing Marlborough Holdings Grp., Ltd. v. Azimut-Benetti, Spa, Platinum Yacht Collection No. Two, Inc. , 505 F. App'x 899, 906 (11th Cir. 2013) ("The delayed discovery rule [is] inapplicable to [ ] FDUTPA claims, as the FDUTPA is a statute and actions under it are ‘founded on a statutory liability.’ "

  8. Ariz. Family Florists LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com

    CV 16-2638 (JMA)(AYS) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2019)

    The parties agree that a four-year statute of limitations applies to a private claim under the FDUPTA. Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(f); Brexendorf v. Bank of Am., N.A., 319 F.Supp.3d 1257, 1263 (M.D. Fla. 2018). Defendants only cursorily address one of the eight alleged breaches and argue that the limitations period on Plaintiffs' FDUPTA claim started running in January, 2011, when the Water Mill Plaintiffs purchased the Fruit Bouquet Starter Kit.