You are signed in as
Sign in now
Click here to see the Legal Issues Archives.Case Dismissed, But …
by Ron Davis
A waste of time and money is the outcome of a lawsuit involving Fort Gatlin Shopping Center in south Florida as well as with certain tenants of the shopping center.
Fort Gatlin’s owners learned of that lawsuit one month prior to any material actions. Efforts to resolve the matter at that point, however, were mostly unsuccessful. By that time the plaintiff, Bruce Larkin, had already sued under the Americans with Disability Act, claiming that the shopping center owners and two of the center’s tenants were violating that law.
Despite the gravity of the charges, however, there was little activity in the case for months. At that point, the plaintiff filed a “motion to dismiss,” indicating that he no longer wanted to pursue the lawsuit “due to a deteriorating medical condition.”
He later did ask for a dismissal of the case. In response, Fort Gatlin’s owners opposed that request of any dismissal of the lawsuit. The court then reserved jurisdiction to allow the defendants to seek attorney fees and costs. The judge followed that ruling by dismissing the case “with prejudice” while still retaining jurisdiction, “solely to consider the imposition of costs.”
Uncertainty oddly loomed as to whether the plaintiff had ever visited the center’s restaurant prior to suing the shopping center owners. In response, the plaintiff was able to assure the court of his first-hand knowledge of the restaurant and its purpose.
Later, the plaintiff asked the court to enact a host of penalties against the defendant, including, but not limited to, an award of costs and attorney fees. In response, the Fort Gatlin defendants filed a response, opposing such allegations.
Certain restrictions are used in such situations.
In conclusion, the court ruled as follows:
As suspected, the judge dismissed the case with the following recommendations:
(Bruce Larkin, Plaintiff, v, Fort Gatlin Shopping Center, LLC, Brazas Chicken, Inc. and C. Jordan Enterprises, Inc., Defendants.)
Decision: April 2017
| Terms & Conditions
| About Us