To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In an opinion issued on December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court resolved a certified conflict between several of the Florida appellate courts as to whether borrowers who prevail on an argument that the lender lacked standing at the time of filing of a foreclosure complaint can recover their attorneys fees as the prevailing party. In
Page v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, et al., Case No. SC19-1137 (Fla. Dec. 31, 2020), the Florida Supreme Court answered that question with a clear and decisive YES.
The Court determined that the fee-shifting provision outlined in Florida Statute, §57.105(7) allows prevailing borrowers to recover attorneys fees when the underlying mortgage contract contains a unilateral fee provision. The Court found that the issue boiled down to statutory interpretation, and that borrowers cannot be prohibited from using the fee-shifting argument to recover fees, even if there is a determinat
Monday, December 21, 2020
In a year where the use of “unprecedented” became routine, COVID-19 dominated just about every aspect of life, and its impact on drug and device law was no less encompassing. As we bid adieu and good riddance to 2020, we pause, once again, to reflect on the most significant legal developments for our drug and device clients this year. Below is a brief recap and assessment of our top five developments in drug and device law for the year.
1. Snap Removal Continues Its Momentum
In April, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals joined the Second and Third Circuits in upholding snap removal. Snap removal occurs when an action is removed from state court to federal court before a forum defendant is served, and it is premised on a plain reading of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).