Equity Residential Properties Trust v. Yates, Case No. 4D03-4571 (FL 7/6/2005), Case No. 4D03-4571.
| Decision Date | 06 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4D04-1844.,Case No. 4D03-4571. |
| Parties | EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TRUST, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT CORP., EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT CORP. II, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD., EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD. II and ERP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellants, v. TAMMY YATES, PETER MILLER, MARIA L. CRUZ and JOSE ORTEGA as Class Representatives of those similarly situated, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Thomas E. Warner and Joseph Ianno, Jr., of Carlton Fields, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Craig M. White, Lucy C. Lisiecki and Richard J. Jancasz of Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for appellants.
Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Jane Kreusler-Walsh, P.A., Theodore Babbitt and Joseph R. Johnson of Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & LeClainche, and Rodney L. Tennyson, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
Tammy Yates, Peter Miller, Maria Cruz, and Jose Ortega brought suit against their former landlord, the appellants in this case, alleging the landlord was collecting what amounted to double rent in violation of Florida's Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). According to the plaintiffs, the landlord was accomplishing this by charging tenants "early termination" and "insufficient notice" fees and then failing to credit the tenants charged such fees for rent collected upon the re-letting of the apartment unit. The four named plaintiffs sought certification of a class action suit on behalf of some ten thousand plus individuals who had been charged these "fees." In turn, the landlord sought to bring a class-wide counterclaim, seeking recovery of all fees and charges owed by these tenants; these charges included not only the unpaid "early termination" and "insufficient notice" fees, but also charges for damage and repairs to each tenant's particular unit. The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, but denied certification of the landlord's counterclaim. In this consolidated appeal, the landlord challenges the trial court's rulings certifying a class action on behalf of the former tenants, but declining to certify a class action with respect to its counterclaim. We affirm.
The former tenants sought class certification pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l.220(a) and (b)(3) and, thus, were required to demonstrate numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequate representation, predominance, and superiority. The biggest hurdle facing the former tenants was the landlord's contention that the need for individualized proof to establish damages necessarily undermined commonality, typicality, predominance, and superiority. For purposes of class certification, though, liability — not damages — is the focus of the inquiry. See Oce Printing Sys. USA, Inc. v. Mailers Data Servs., Inc., 760 So. 2d 1037, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Class certification becomes inappropriate only when the need to prove damages on an individualized basis will play such a predominant role in the litigation as to significantly outweigh any benefits to be gained by a class action lawsuit. See Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Hines, 883 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), clarified on reh'g, (Oct. 6, 2004); see also Perez v. Metabolife Int'l, Inc., 218 F.R.D. 262, 273 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (). In this case, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's certification of a class action on behalf of the former tenants and rejection of any claim that individualized issues regarding damages would so overwhelm the proceedings that a class action was untenable. See Stone v. Compuserve Interactive Servs., Inc., 804 So. 2d 383, 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ().
Next, relying upon Key Club Associates, L.P. v. Mayer, 718 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the landlord insists its counterclaim was compulsory and, therefore, that the trial court could not simply deny class certification without taking steps to protect its due process rights. In Key Club Associates, the trial court certified a group of about 200 condominium owners in a class action to recover money that they claimed was due because Key Club, the manager of the condominium resort hotel, had over-billed the unit owners for repairs, maintenance and replacement of items in their units. In response, Key Club alleged certain additional costs that had not been billed to the unit owners, raised the defense of setoff and filed a counterclaim. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim and ruled that, as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial