Horowitch v. DIAMOND AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC.
645 F.3d 1254
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Horowitch sued Diamond Aircraft in a Florida-diversity action over a D-Jet aircraft price dispute, asserting four claims: specific performance (in the alternative to damages), breach of contract, breach of the covenants of good faith and fair dealing, and deceptive trade practices.
- The FDUTPA claim was pursued as part of the deceptive practices count, with Horowitch seeking attorney's fees under FDUTPA; Diamond sought fees under the Florida offer of judgment statute and the FDUTPA fee-shifting provision.
- The district court granted summary judgment against Horowitch on all claims except the FDUTPA claim, which it found governed by Arizona law; Horowitch then pursued the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act claim at trial, which Diamond ultimately prevailed against.
- Diamond made an offer of judgment for $40,000 to resolve all claims, before the specific performance claim was resolved, but the offer did not specify attorney's fees or whether fees were part of the legal claim, nor did it include a certificate of service.
- The district court awarded no fees under either the FDUTPA or the offer of judgment statute, holding the offer was non-viable for damages plus non-monetary relief and that FDUTPA did not apply given Arizona law.
- The Eleventh Circuit certified four questions to the Florida Supreme Court to resolve how Florida's offer of judgment statute, Rule 1.442, and the FDUTPA fee-shifting provisions apply in this context, and whether Erie doctrine affects their status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of offer when no attorney's fees stated | Horowitch argues the offer should be viable under McMahan. | Diamond argues strict compliance with Rule 1.442(c)(2)(F) required; failure forfeits the offer. | Question certified: validity depends on Florida Supreme Court interpretation of § 768.79 and Rule 1.442. |
| Application to equitable relief alongside damages | Offer should cover all claims including equitable relief in the alternative. | Palm Beach Polo/Di Paola limit offer when non-monetary relief is sought; so offer may be invalid. | Question certified: whether § 768.79 applies to cases seeking equitable relief in the alternative. |
| FDUTPA fee-shifting when foreign law governs | FDUTPA may permit fees even if another state's law governs the substantive claim. | Fees only if FDUTPA applies or if statute permits; other state's law governs, so FDUTPA may not apply. | Question certified: whether § 501.2105 permits fees when the substantive governing law is foreign. |
| Scope of FDUTPA fee-shifting (entire litigation vs. pre- and post- FDUTPA period) | If FDUTPA applies, fees may cover entire litigation. | Fees may be limited to period before FDUTPA claim was eliminated or to entire case depending on interpretation. | Question certified: whether FDUTPA fee-shifting applies to the entire litigation or only the pre-cessation period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 632 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir.2011) ( Erie framework and substantive Florida law decisions cited)
- Jones v. United Space Alliance, L.L.C., 494 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir.2007) (Florida offer of judgment statute treated as substantive)
- McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir.2002) (offer of judgment where claims included attorney's fees; interpretation of Rule 1.442)
- Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So.2d 223 (Fla.2007) (strict construction of offer of judgment and Rule 1.442; technical errors matter)
- Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Equestrian Club Estates Property Owners Association, Inc., 22 So.3d 140 (Fla.4th DCA 2009) (non-monetary relief claims can exclude application of offer statute)
- Di Paola v. Beach Terrace Association, Inc., 718 So.2d 1275 (Fla.2d DCA 1998) (injunctive relief and damages offers; lack of clarity on injunctions)
- BDO Seidman v. British Car Auctions, 802 So.2d 366 (Fla.4th DCA 2001) (choice of law and applicability of offer statute in Florida courts)
- Rustic Village v. Friedman, 417 So.2d 305 (Fla.3d DCA 1982) (FDUTPA fee-shifting context and applicability to prevailing defendant)
- M.G.B. Homes, Inc. v. Ameron Homes, Inc., 30 F.3d 113 (11th Cir.1994) (FDUTPA fee-shifting in competitor disputes)
- Rustic Village v. Friedman, 417 So.2d 305 (Fla.3d DCA 1982) (fee-shifting concept discussed in rule context)
- LaFerney v. Scott Smith Oldsmobile, Inc., 410 So.2d 534 (Fla.5th DCA 1982) ( FDUTPA interplay with contract/ deceit theories)
- LaFerney v. Scott Smith Oldsmobile, Inc., 410 So.2d 534 (Fla.5th DCA 1982) ( cited regarding FDUTPA overlapping theories)