Jurisdictional Answer Brief
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC09-690 CHARLES K. BORTELL, Petitioner, v. WHITE MOUNTAINS INSURANCE GROUP, LTD., SIRIUS INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CORP., INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., MHG SERVICES, INC., ANDREW J. DUDZINSKI, CAROLINE BASSIER, J.W. HAAGENSEN JR., and DONNA M. MACPHAIL Respondents. _______________________________________ RESPONDENTS' BRIEF ON JURISDICTION _______________________________________ ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT Christopher N. Bellows Holland & Knight LLP Counsel for Respondents MHG Services, Inc., Andrew Dudzinski, Caroline Bassier, and J.W. Haagensen Jr. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000 Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 374-8500 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS .......................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2 THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE DECISION BELOW DOES NOT EXPRESSLY AND DIRECTLY CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF ANY OTHER DISTRICT COURT OR OF THIS COURT....................................................................... 2 JOINDER OF ALL RESPONDENTS ....................................................................... 3 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................. 6 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................... 6 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Nat'l Adoption Counseling Serv., Inc., 498 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1986) ................................................................................... 2 Greyhound Corp. v. Carswell, 181 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1966) ................................................................................... 3 Grisillo v. Franklyn's, Inc., 173 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1965) ................................................................................... 3 Kincaid v. World Ins. Co., 157 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1963) ................................................................................... 2 Kyle v. Kyle, 139 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1962) ................................................................................... 3 Mancini v. State, 312 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1975) ................................................................................... 2 Reaves v. State, 485 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1986) ................................................................................... 2 Sanchez v. Wimpey, 409 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1982) ..................................................................................... 2 State ex rel. Ranalli v. Johnson, In and For Broward County, 277 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1973) ..................................................................................... 2 Terry v. State, 808 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 2002) ................................................................................. 3 Weston v. Nathanson, 173 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1964) ................................................................................... 2 STATUTES Section 624.155(2), Florida Statutes .......................................................................... 1 ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The trial court granted respondents' motions to dismiss petitioner's amended complaint with prejudice, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed (A1- 9).1 On count one—a statutory claim under Section 624.155(2) of the Florida Statutes—the court held that petitioner did not have standing because he was not a "party" to an insurance contract (A5-7). On count two—RICO—the Fourth District held that petitioner's allegations of indirect harm were insufficient to satisfy proximate cause (direct harm) requirements under RICO (A7). Lastly, the court rejected count three—tortious interference—because petitioner failed to identify any customers that had been interfered with, and also because respondents were parties to the alleged insurance contracts being complained about, making a tortious interference claim impossible (A7-9). SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Fourth District's decision is consistent with the law everywhere in Florida. Moreover, petitioner does not argue that the decision conflicts with the decisions of another district court or this Court. Instead, Petitioner argues only about matters outside the opinion itself and how the result on the merits is contrary to other Fourth District decisions and federal-court caselaw. These are not grounds 1 "A" is the appendix to this brief, containing the Fourth District's decision only. 1 for conflict jurisdiction—no grounds exist—and the petition for review must be denied. ARGUMENT THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE DECISION BELOW DOES NOT EXPRESSLY AND DIRECTLY CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF ANY OTHER DISTRICT COURT OR OF THIS COURT The Fourth District's decision accords with Florida law, and no conflict with the decisions of any other district court or this Court is argued by Petitioner. Accordingly, the petition for review should be denied. As it is, petitioner goes outside the decision itself, refers to the general record, hearing transcripts, the trial judge, the lawyers, and his dissatisfaction with the ruling on its merits. This is improper, and cannot be the basis for conflict jurisdiction. Reaves v. State, 485 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1986) (only four corners of majority decision can be used to establish conflict jurisdiction); Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Nat'l Adoption Counseling Serv., Inc., 498 So. 2d 888, 898 (Fla. 1986) (same); Kincaid v. World Ins. Co., 157 So. 2d 517, 518 (Fla. 1963) (same); State ex rel. Ranalli v. Johnson, In and For Broward County, 277 So. 2d 24, 25 (Fla. 1973) (statements of trial judge, not relied on specifically in district court decision, cannot be basis for conflict jurisdiction); Sanchez v. Wimpey, 409 So. 2d 20, 21 (Fla. 1982) (merits are irrelevant, where there is no conflict); Mancini v. 2 State, 312 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 1975) (same); Weston v. Nathanson, 173 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla. 1964) (same). Petitioner also says—incorrectly—that the decision is contrary to other Fourth District decisions. This cannot be the basis for conflict jurisdiction. Terry v. State, 808 So. 2d 1249, 1250 n.1 (Fla. 2002) (Supreme Court's jurisdiction does not extend to alleged intra-district conflict); Greyhound Corp. v. Carswell, 181 So. 2d 638, 640 (Fla. 1966) (same); Grisillo v. Franklyn's, Inc., 173 So. 2d 682, 682 (Fla. 1965) (same). Lastly, Petitioner says the decision is contrary to federal-court decisions. But "conflict must stem from divergent decisions on the same point of law by separate courts within the appellate jurisdictional system of the State of Florida." Kyle v. Kyle, 139 So. 2d 885, 887 (Fla. 1962). Thus petitioner's reliance on federal-court decisions is improper and cannot invoke the conflict jurisdiction of this Court. Because there is no express and direct conflict with decisions of other district courts or this Court—and petitioner has identified none—there is no jurisdiction to go forward. The petition, then, must be denied. JOINDER OF ALL RESPONDENTS The undersigned is authorized to state that all respondents join in this response brief. 3 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the petition for review must be denied. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP _____________________________ Christopher N. Bellows, Esq. Florida Bar No. 512745 Gregory A. Baldwin Florida Bar No. 527394 Attorneys for Respondents MHG Services, Inc., Andrew J. Dudzinsky, Caroline Bassier and J. W. Haagensen, Jr. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000 Miami, Florida 33131 Phone: (305) 375-8500 Fax: (305) 789-7799 Farrokh Jhabvala, Esquire Florida Bar No. 765155 JORDEN BURT LLP Attorneys for Respondents White Mountains Insurance Group Limited and Sirius International Insurance Corp. 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 500 Miami, Florida 33131 4 Joel S. Fass, Esquire Florida Bar No. 213233 Krista S. Kovalcin, Esquire Florida Bar No. 13646 COLODNY, FASS, TALENFELD, KARLINSKY, ABATE, P.A. Attorneys for Respondent International Medical Group, Inc. One Financial Plaza 100 Southeast Third Avenue 23rd Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Elizabeth M. Rodriguez, Esquire Florida Bar No. 821690 FORD & HARRISON, LLP Attorneys for Donna M. MacPhail Bank of America Tower 100 Southeast Second Street Suite 2150 Miami, Florida 33131 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed on June 12, 2009 to Charles K. Bortell, pro se petitioner, 5200 North Federal Highway, #2, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308. _____________________________ Christopher N. Bellows, Esq. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this brief complies with the font requirements set forth in Rule 9.210 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure because it has been prepared in Times New Roman 14-point font. Christopher N. Bellows # 6344870_v1 6 .