Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1994

Goldfarb v. Insurance Co. of North America

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided August 24, 1994 · Barkdull, Gersten, Jorgenson

642 So. 2d 586; 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8368; 1994 WL 454870 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Wyeth, Inc. v. Gottlieb (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
Toledo v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HOSP. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Whigum v. Heilig-Meyers Furniture Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a non-final order denying a designation of a matter in the trial court as a class action.

*587We affirm for two reasons. First, the plaintiff was estopped by the doctrine of the “law of the case” from now urging that the claims of the several plaintiffs and of the class, are common, having previously argued successfully before the local federal district court judge that they were separate.1 See and compare U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Columbia Cos. Co., 124 Fla. 633, 169 So. 532 (1936); Dickerson v. Shikany, 485 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Alford v. Summerlin, 423 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Second, no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated by the appellants, and without such, the trial court should be affirmed in denying the class certification. See and compare East Texas Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 S.Ct. 1891, 1896, 52 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977); Arrowsmith v. Broward County, 633 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Love v. General Dev. Corp., 555 So.2d 397, 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Adiel v. Electronic Fin. Sys., Inc., 513 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1983). Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the trial court order denying certification as a class action is affirmed.

Affirmed.

. After the matter had been removed to the federal court by the defendants it was remanded to the trial court upon motion of the plaintiffs which urged the separateness of the various claims.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.