Taviere v. Precision Motor Cars, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Auto Glass Am., LLC

    418 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (M.D. Fla. 2019)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that a claim for declaratory judgment that was premised on alleged violations set forth in other claims did not have to be dismissed on the basis that it was nothing more than a "mash-up" of all prior claims

    Some federal courts in Florida have referred to these FDUTPA claims as "per se violations" because they are explicitly provided for in the statute. See, e.g.,Williams v. Delray Auto Mall, Inc. , 916 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2013) ; Taviere v. Precision Motor Cars, Inc. , No. 8:09-cv-467-T-TBM, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12493, 2010 WL 557347, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2010). Preliminarily, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are not consumers and therefore cannot bring the FDUTPA claims that are based on per se violations (Counts VII and VIII).

  2. Cross v. Point & Pay, LLC

    274 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2017)   Cited 6 times
    Stating that "the voluntary payment doctrine is an affirmative defense that normally should not be considered on a motion to dismiss"

    Some federal courts in Florida have referred to FDUTPA claims based on the latter as "per se violations" because they are explicitly provided for in the statute. See, e.g. , Williams v. Delray Auto Mall, Inc. , 916 F.Supp.2d 1294, 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2013) ; Taviere v. Precision Motor Cars, Inc. , No. 8:09-cv-467-T-TBM, 2010 WL 557347, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2010).

  3. Prunty v. Sibelius

    Case No: 2:14-cv-313-FtM-29CM (M.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2014)

    The FDUTPA does not permit claims for personal injury, and Plaintiffs do not allege a FDUTPA violation in the purchase of the prescription medication. See Fla. Stat. § 501.212(3); Taviere v. Precision Motor Cars, Inc., No. 8:09-cv-467-T-TBM, 2010 WL 557347, *5 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2010). Thus, the Court finds that amendment would be futile.

  4. Echols v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    CASE NO. 2:13-CV-14215-ROSENBERG/LYNCH (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2014)   Cited 3 times

    FDUTPA expressly states that it "does not apply to . . . [a] claim for personal injury or death or a claim for damage to property other than the property that is the subject of the consumer transaction." Fla. Stat. § 501.212(3); see also, e.g., Taviere v. Precision Motor Cars, Inc., No. 8:09-cv-467-T-TBM, 2010 WL 557347, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2010); T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995); Gorran v. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 2d 315, 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Echols relied on "unfair and deceptive trade practices" that caused him to become "severely injured" and suffer "serious injury and illness."

  5. Terrell v. DirecTV, LLC

    CASE NO. 12-81244-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2013)   Cited 3 times
    Requiring amendment of a complaint where, among other deficiencies, the paragraphs were not numbered consecutively, several complaints had been merged into one, the complaint was repetitive and rambling, “[s]everal counts appear [ed] to be cut-off mid-count,” and unnecessary statutes and regulations were attached as exhibits

    Lastly, the plain language of the FDUTPA expressly prohibits claims for personal injuries. See Florida Statutes § 501.212(3); see also Taviere v. Precision Motor Cars, Inc., No. 8:09-cv-467-T-TBM, 2010 WL 557347, at * 5 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2010) (dismissing claim under FDUTPA because plaintiff alleged damages relating to stress, anxiety and depression and FDUTPA bars claims for personal injuries); Jones v. TT of Longwood, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-651-Orl-19DAB, 2007 WL 2298020, at * 7 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (dismissing claim under FDUTPA because "[s]ubjective feelings of disappointment are insufficient to form a basis for actual damages under the statute"); T.W.M. v. American MedicalSys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla.1995) (dismissing claim under FDUTPA where plaintiff alleged pain, suffering and loss of earnings because FDUTPA "explicitly states that it does not apply to '[a] claim for personal injury or death or a claim for damage to property other than the property that is the subject of the consumer transaction"). Plaintiff has improperly alleged claims for damages relating to mental anguish, lost profits and loss of information on his computer system.

  6. Mantz v. TRS Recovery Servs. Inc.

    CASE NO. 11-80580-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON (S.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2011)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that plaintiff failed to state a FDUTPA claim because he failed to allege damages recoverable under the statute

    Lastly, the plain language of the FDUTPA expressly prohibits claims for personal injuries. See Florida Statutes § 501.212(3); see also Taviere v. Precision Motor Cars, Inc., No. No. 8:09-cv-467-T-TBM, 2010 WL 557347, at * 5 (dismissing claim under FDUTPA because plaintiff alleged damages relating to stress, anxiety and depression and FDUTPA bars claims for personal injuries); Jones v. TT of Longwood, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-651-Orl-19DAB, 2007 WL 2298020, at * 7 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (dismissing claim under FDUTPA because "[s]ubjective feelings of disappointment are insufficient to form a basis for actual damages under the statute"); T.W.M. v. American Medical Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (dismissing claim under FDUTPA where plaintiff alleged pain, suffering and loss of earnings because FDUTPA "explicitly states that it does not apply to '[a] claim for personal injury or death or a claim for damage to property other than the property that is the subject of the consumer transaction").