The Fourth DCA held that a proposal for settlement served under section 768.79 was ineffective where the parties’ contract contained a New York choice-of-law provision that had not yet been waived at the time the proposal was served, even though the offeree later waived the provision.
The Fourth DCA reversed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a FDUTPA vehicle purchase dispute, holding that the trial court erred by deferring factual disputes about agreement validity to a jury rather than resolving them at the evidentiary hearing.
The First DCA set aside the Department of Health’s denial of operating permits for a float tank therapy business, finding the Department improperly relied on an unadopted rule — the ‘2020 Float Tank Code’ — and failed to adequately explain its rejection of the ALJ’s findings.
The Fourth DCA affirmed a final judgment in a breach of contract case but referred the appellant’s attorney to the Florida Bar after finding that the initial brief contained multiple quotations from the trial transcript that do not appear anywhere in the actual record.
The Fourth DCA imposed a filing bar on a pro se litigant in a divorce case who filed multiple AI-generated petitions containing frivolous arguments and AI-hallucinated legal propositions, holding that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys regarding the accuracy of their filings.
The Fourth DCA sanctioned an attorney and referred him to the Florida Bar for filing a certiorari petition containing fabricated case citations, finding that whether counsel used AI is irrelevant to the need for sanctions when fictitious authority is presented to the court.