From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coastal Phys. Serv. B. Co. v. Ortiz

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jan 27, 1999
764 So. 2d 7 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Summary

holding non-Florida residents cannot assert FDUTPA claims

Summary of this case from AMAR SHAKTI ENTERPRISES, LLC v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE

Opinion

No. 98-1564

January 27, 1999.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Lucy Chernow Brown, J.

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


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.


Summaries of

Coastal Phys. Serv. B. Co. v. Ortiz

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jan 27, 1999
764 So. 2d 7 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

holding non-Florida residents cannot assert FDUTPA claims

Summary of this case from AMAR SHAKTI ENTERPRISES, LLC v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE

holding non-Florida residents cannot assert FDUTPA claims

Summary of this case from Amar Shakti Enters. LLC v. Wyndham Worldwide, Inc.

concluding that FDUTPA was enacted to protect in-state consumers

Summary of this case from Karhu v. Vital Pharms., Inc.

noting that FDUPTA is "for the protection of in-state consumers"

Summary of this case from Hytera Commc'ns Corps. v. Motorola Sols.

stating that FDUTPA is "for the protection of in-state consumers"

Summary of this case from Stein v. Marquis Yachts, LLC

stating that "non-Florida residents cannot make claims under . . . the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act"

Summary of this case from In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig.

stating that "non-Florida residents cannot make claims under . . . the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act"

Summary of this case from In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation

In Coastal, this court addressed a discovery issue as it applied to a class action for violation of FDUPTA and the Consumer Protection Act.

Summary of this case from Hutson v. Rexall Sundown
Case details for

Coastal Phys. Serv. B. Co. v. Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:COASTAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES OF BROWARD COUNTY, INC. and HEALTHCARE BUSINESS…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jan 27, 1999

Citations

764 So. 2d 7 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Barnext Offshore, Ltd. v. Ferretti Grp. USA, Inc.

Nonetheless, Defendants assert that the FDUTPA applies only to the limited circumstance where the consumer is…

Stein v. Marquis Yachts, LLC

Florida courts have held that FDUTPA does not apply to actions that occurred outside of Florida. See…