Coastal Physician Services of Broward County, Inc. v. Ortiz
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Oce Printing Systems USA, Inc. v. MAILERS DATA SERV. INC. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
- Millennium Communications & Fulfillment, Inc. v. Office of Atty. Gen. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
- Big Gates Records, LLC, Washington v. Stewart (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2026)
- Melton v. Century Arms, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2017)
- Ajose v. Interline Brands, Inc. (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 2016)
- In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2011)
- In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2010)
- In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2009)
- Hutson v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
- Schauer v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
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
COASTAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES OF BROWARD COUNTY, INC. and Healthcare Business Resources, Inc., Petitioners,
v.
Carmen ORTIZ, Respondent.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
*8 Paul H. Field of Lane, Reese, Aulick, Summers & Field, P.A., Coral Gables, for petitioners.
Marshall J. Osofsky and Louis M. Silber of Lewis, Vegosen, Rosenbach, Silber & Dunkel, P.A., and Philip L. Valente, Jr. of Valente & Natale, L.L.C., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
WARNER, J.
The petitioner, on motion for rehearing, again objects to our failure to limit the discovery request to Florida residents, allowing the respondent to pursue discovery related to non-Florida recipients of the offending billing notices. The petitioner claims that since non-Florida residents cannot make claims under either the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, sections 501.201-.213, Florida Statutes (1997), or the Consumer Collection Practices Act, sections 559.55-.785, Florida Statutes (1997), discovery should not be allowed regarding out-of-state billings. Having reviewed the statutory provisions, we conclude that these acts are for the protection of in-state consumers from either in-state or out-of-state debt collectors. See, e.g., § 501.202(3); § 559.55(6). Other states can protect their own residents, as Florida itself does with regard to out-of-state collectors. See, e.g., § 559.565.
We therefore grant the petition for certiorari to the extent that it requests discovery of billing notices sent to the residents of other states.
POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.