Inphynet Contracting Services, Inc. v. Soria
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16076
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dr. Soria sued InPhyNet and Team Health in a class action claiming a phantom 'Other Physician Benefits' deduction reduced profits and bonus distributions.
- InPhyNet I concluded no class action could be maintained due to absence of a written obligation to pay a profit percentage and need for individualized proof, reversing certification.
- Upon mandate, Soria filed a second amended complaint seeking class status, focusing only on the 'Other Physician Benefits' deduction.
- Petitioners argued the amendment revived the same claim as InPhyNet I, but the trial court allowed the amendment.
- The appellate court issued a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from proceeding with class certification inconsistent with InPhyNet I.
- The court grants the writ, precluding certification of the Second Amended Complaint as a class action while allowing individual claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prohibition is proper to enforce the appellate mandate. | Soria argues mandate bars class certification and trial court erred. | InPhyNet argues mandate permits no contrary action by trial court. | Prohibition appropriate; trial court barred from certifying the Second Amended Complaint as a class action. |
| Whether 'Other Physician Benefits' claims require individualized proof. | Soria contends the issue fits within the prior class framework and can be class-wide. | InPhyNet contends such claims hinge on contract formation and are individualized. | Individual issues predominate; class certification not appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- InPhyNet Contracting Services, Inc. v. Soria, 33 So.3d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (appellate mandate on class action viability)
- Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 381 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (prohibition to enforce appellate mandates)
- State ex rel. Rimmeir v. Milledge, 104 So.2d 355 (Fla.1958) (prohibition appropriate when lower court acts contrary to mandate)
- State ex rel. Paluska v. White, 162 So.2d 697 (Fla.2d DCA 1964) (denying prohibition; relevant for scope of mandate enforcement)
- State ex rel. Gibbs v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, 140 Fla. 378, 191 So. 699 (Fla.1939) (mandate enforcement after appellate judgment)