Background
JJL Equipment Holdings, along with James Everett and Jackie Hall, sued Khrysos Global, Phantom Industries, and Dwayne Dundore over a proposed marijuana-extraction system known as the Green Machine. They alleged they paid $385,000 to Khrysos and Phantom after representations that the companies would provide the machine or a similar system and related technology, but never received the equipment or a refund.
JJL asserted a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim against Dundore personally. Hall’s summary-judgment affidavit said Dundore made the relevant representations and failed to deliver the system. Dundore’s opposing affidavit acknowledged discussions as Khrysos’s president but denied personally promising to provide the system, denied receiving JJL’s payments personally, and maintained that Khrysos—not he—contracted with JJL.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District reversed summary judgment solely on JJL’s FDUTPA claim against Dundore and remanded for further proceedings. A FDUTPA damages claim requires a deceptive or unfair practice, causation, and actual damages.
Hall’s affidavit supported JJL’s theory that Dundore personally participated in deceptive conduct, but Dundore’s affidavit directly disputed that account. Without Hall’s affidavit, the remaining evidence did not establish that Dundore personally engaged in deceptive or unfair practices. The competing affidavits created a genuine dispute of material fact that could not be resolved on summary judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Conflicting affidavits about an individual’s personal role in alleged deceptive conduct can defeat summary judgment on a FDUTPA claim.
- A court may not weigh credibility or effectively conduct a trial on affidavits at the summary-judgment stage.
- The appeal concerned only the FDUTPA count against Dundore; the judgments against Khrysos and Phantom were not appealed.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that corporate status does not itself resolve personal FDUTPA liability, but a plaintiff must still establish the individual’s own deceptive or unfair conduct. When the record presents materially conflicting evidence on that question, the dispute must be decided through further proceedings rather than summary judgment.