Craig Knox and Craig Richards obtained defense verdict for FDLE
On September 21, 2018, Craig Knox and Craig Richards obtained a defense verdict in favor of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in a state law whistle blower retaliation claim after a week-long trial. This case dealt with various complex issues, including, but not limited to the application of the causation standard and deduction of unemployment benefits from any lost wage calculation.
Joe Longfellow and Craig Knox obtained a defense verdict for a deputy sheriff
On July 27, 2018, Joe Longfellow and Craig Knox obtained a defense verdict following a week-long trial in the Pensacola Division of the Northern District of Florida in the U.S. District Court. They defended a deputy sheriff in an excessive force claim. Prior to trial, a summary judgment was obtained on the false arrest claim in favor of the deputy sheriff.
Ramsey Revell joins Andrews, Crabtree, Knox & Longfellow, LLP
Please help us in congratulating our new attorney Ramsey Revell. She is an associate practicing in the areas of administrative law, automotive liability, commercial and tort litigation, construction defect litigation, medical malpractice defense and premises liability. Ramsey has served as deputy chief administrative prosecuting attorney before the Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB), handling depositions, hearings, settlement negotiations, and disciplinary proceedings. She has litigated cases before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and is experienced in handling appellate matters before the First District Court of Appeal.
Joe Longfellow obtains a Partial Summary Judgment in federal civil rights case
On April 19, 2017, the Northern District granted partial summary judgment in a state and federal civil rights case, wherein the Plaintiff was alleging claims for false arrest, excessive force and battery. The Court found the deputy sheriff was entitled to qualified and sovereign immunity on the false arrest claims. The Court denied summary judgment on the excessive force claim because there was an alleged disputed issue of material fact.
Joe Longfellow Named Firm Partner
On January 1, 2015, Joe Longfellow was named a firm partner. Joe joined the firm after graduating law school and taking the Florida Bar exam in August 2008. Over the years, Joe has been successful in obtaining numerous defense verdicts and summary judgments. He has also handled several successful appeals for his clients in both state and federal court. Joe's practice is focused on civil rights defense, construction defect litigation, general insurance defense, medical malpractice defense, and premises liability. Joe is married with three children and loves spending time with his family. He is an avid outdoorsman, NY Yankees and college football fan.
Jeannette Andrews and Joe Longfellow secure a defense verdict for a local sheriff's office
On February 26, 2016, Joe Longfellow and Jeannette Andrews obtained a defense verdict in a federal civil rights case against a local sheriff's department after a 1 week trial. The claim involved inmates who alleged they were forced to have sexual relations with an officer of another agency outside of the jail while incarcerated. The inmates were from another county and were checked out by an officer of that county various times for appointments. The Plaintiffs argued that the local sheriff's department should have known that a former officer from another county was having sexual relations with inmates and that one of the Plaintiffs told the sheriff. On behalf of the agency, Mr. Longfellow and Ms. Andrews argued that there was no reasonable basis for the agency to know and that no one with supervisory authority at the agency was told about this by an inmate. They also argued that there had never been a similar situation prior to this case. No appeals were taken after the verdict and they obtained a cost judgment against the Plaintiffs.
Summary Judgment obtained in a civil rights action on behalf of regional Airport District
The Firm recently obtained a summary judgment dismissing all claims on behalf of a regional Airport District and several law enforcement officers working for the Airport District in a federal court action, where the plaintiffs claimed the Airport and law enforcement officers conspired to deprive them and their company of certain constitutional due process protections related to their use of the Airport property and access to the Airport grounds. Plaintiffs claimed the Airport and officers conspired to deprive plaintiffs of access to their hangar and to secured areas of the Airport grounds, which precluded them from doing business and caused their business to shut down. They also claimed certain of their office and hangar space was unconstitutionally searched and seized, and that their badge access to the secured portion of the Airport grounds was unconstitutionally taken away. The Federal Judge ruled against plaintiff on all constitutional grounds, granting summary judgment that no unconstitutional deprivation of rights occurred. The Appeal of the Judge's ruling was Dismissed by the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case Update: Sink v. Emerald Hill Owners Association, Inc.
Appellants challenged an award of attorneys' fees and costs against them, which was based on a proposal for settlement. The District Court of Appeal reversed, because the terms of the proposal were not clear. A proposal for settlement must be as specific as possible. This will allow the receiving party to fully evaluate its terms and conditions. The terms of the release upon which the settlement offer is conditioned must be stated with sufficient particularity in the proposal to allow full appraisal of the offer.
Case Update: Ramirez v. M.L. Management Co. , et al.
Plaintiff's child was bitten by a dog at a park adjacent to an apartment complex where she was a tenant. As a result, plaintiff sued the apartment management company and others. The dog was owned by another tenant. The apartment complex did not own the park but advertised the park, as a feature of the apartment complex. The apartment complex's rules prohibited the type of dog that bit Plaintiff's child. The tenant dog owner had two dogs, which were prohibited by the rules. There were reports that the dogs had menaced other tenants, and one tenant claimed to have reported the dogs to the apartment's management company; however, the apartment manager never asked the owner to remove the dogs from the premises. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the apartment management company. The court reasoned that a landowner, in this case the apartment management company, could be liable to a business invitee (the victim tenant and her child), for injuries occurring off the premises where the apartment management company knew that the invitees were using adjacent lands for purposes connected with the business invitation. Distinguishing other cases where there was no relationship between the victim and the landowner, the court concluded that the landlord owed a duty to its tenants to protect them from dangerous dogs on adjacent property where the landlord utilized the adjacent property to promote his business interests.
Summary Judgment in Deliberate Indifference Claims
A federal claim for deliberate indifference is unlike a state law claim for negligence. The distinction is one of great importance because the standard is much higher in a deliberate indifference claim. A claim for deliberate indifference has three components: (1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; and (3) by conduct that is more mere negligence. This is a claim that is very difficult for a plaintiff to prevail on and often leads to the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in these types of cases.
However, the preparation of your case varies if the allegations are against an officer or employee in his or her individual capacity versus an agency or agency head in his or her official capacity. There are also various defenses that must be asserted at the onset of a case and affect how the case is defended. Hence, it is important when choosing counsel to represent you, your company, your employees or agency that you have an attorney who understands not only the current case law, issues and defenses, but also who knows what will be needed to obtain a successful result for you. Andrews, Crabtree, Knox & Andrews, LLP has attorneys who routinely handle these types of claims and obtain summary judgment in their client's favor.