Cohen v. Camino Sheridan, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-323,84-323 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 915 Harold L. COHEN and Ette Cohen, his wife, Jules Pearlman and Shirley Pearlman, his wife, Tony Sandelier and Ruth Sandelier, his wife, Carl Ritter and June Ritter, his wife, "Class Representation," Appellants, v. CAMINO SHERIDAN, INC., Gable Roofing, City of Hollywood, a municipal corporation, and Penninsula General Builders, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard I. Glick of Abe Rosenberg, P.A., Hollywood, for appellants.
Steven H. Simler and Mark A. Rutledge of Pomeroy, Betts & Markel, West Palm Beach, for appellee, Gable Roofing.
Caron E. Speas and Robert M. Klein of Stephens, Lynn, Chernay & Klein, P.A., Miami, for appellee, City of Hollywood.
Appellants, eight persons who were seeking to maintain a class action for damages resulting from an allegedly negligent construction of the roofs on their dwellings, appeal from an order that dismissed their complaint as a class action. Professing to be members of a class described as all homeowners of Camino Sheridan, appellants filed a complaint on behalf of all members of that class against Camino Sheridan, Inc., Gable Roofing, and the City of Hollywood. The complaint charged Camino and its parent corporation, Penninsula General Builders, Inc., with breach of warranty as to the dwellings, Gable Roofing with negligent construction of the roofs on said dwellings, and the City of Hollywood with negligent inspection of said construction.
The class action allegations of the complaint are based upon Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220. Appellants contend that there are common questions of law and fact that predominate over any other questions. They allege that all members of the class they seek to represent purchased their homes from the developer Camino Sheridan and had their roofs installed by Gables Roofing; the roofs had latent defects and developed leaks, which plaintiffs became aware of after April 1, 1979. Appellant alleged as examples of identical issues of law that relate to all members of the class, the following; "is a governmental agency liable for a faulty building inspection, are the Plaintiffs third-party beneficiarys (sic) to the contract between GABLE ROOFING and CAMINO SHERIDAN, INC., did the CITY OF HOLLYWOOD permit certificates of occupancy to issue despite the existance (sic) of code violations[?]"
Upon motion of the defendant-appellees, the trial court dismissed the complaint because it was found to be inappropriate for class action litigation. On motion for clarification, the court entered an order specifically finding that causes of action were stated for the individual party plaintiffs but that a class action could not be maintained "because the individual causes of action accrued at different times and the individual damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co.
...641 So.2d at 891 (“Entitlement to different amounts of damages is not fatal to a class action.” (citing Cohen v. Camino Sheridan, Inc., 466 So.2d 1212, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985))). Rather, the commonality requirement is aimed at determining whether there is a need for, and benefit derived fr......
-
Rollins, Inc. v. Butland
...445 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), Mathieson v. General Motors Corp., 529 So.2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), or [Cohen v.] Camino Sheridan[, Inc., 466 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)]. These cases do not dictate affirmance; they merely demonstrate Florida's aversion to class action treatment for......
-
Rollins, Inc. v. Butland
...445 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), Mathieson v. General Motors Corp., 529 So.2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), or [Cohen v.] Camino Sheridan[, Inc., 466 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)]. These cases do not dictate affirmance; they merely demonstrate Florida's aversion to class action treatment for......
-
W.S. Badcock Corp. v. Myers
...defenses as to individual members of a class, is not fatal to a class action. Broin, 641 So.2d at 891; Cohen v. Camino Sheridan, 466 So.2d 1212, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). By the same token, the possibility of counterclaims or defenses as to delinquent accounts does not preclude resolution o......
-
Class actions: fundamentals of certification analysis.
...pieces of property, a class action is generally not an appropriate means of resolving the claims"); Cohen v. Camino Sheridan, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1212, 1214 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1985) (because complaint did not allege that many individual contracts were virtually identical, there was "simply insuf......
-
Considerations in class certification.
...is not defeated by different amounts of damages among class members and their representatives. Cohen v. Camino Sheridan, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Nevertheless, the factual circumstances surrounding the representative plaintiff's claim must be sufficiently similar to the cl......