So quick one for you TCPAWorld.
Earlier this year there was a lot of buzz and excitement around a potential revision to the Florida mini-tcpa to address some of the more controversial (read: unconstitutional) provisions.
While the Florida Senate moved quickly to pass a bill that would have modified the FTSA in a few critical ways, the Florida House–where the powerful Florida trial bar holds more sway–passed its own bill that somehow managed to expand the FTSA even more.
Classic high-end litigator technique. Always come back over the top.
Unsurprisingly with the two houses of the Florida legislature diametrically opposed on needed relief both bills died without action.
Well during the sunny days of yesteryor (is that a word? I mean, even an old timey word?) at least one defendant moved to stay an FTSA case pending the potential amendment to the Mini TCPA. That was actually a really good move–until the Senate bill went nowhere.
Rather than withdraw the motion, however, the Defendant pressed that the case should STILL be stayed–even after the legislative session ended–because, hey “there’s always next year.”
Specifically, the Defendant argued the case should be stayed because “because the Florida Legislature is likely to consider the issue in the next legislative session.”
Hey, why not?
But the Court disagreed. With a cite to ole Rule 1–where are those cites when class counsel is demanding a billion ESI records be produced?– the court said it simply wouldn’t be consistent with the just speedy resolution of the case to stay it pending what the Florida legislature might do later.
The case is Zimmerman v. Assuredpartners, Inc., Case No: 8:21-cv-2155-CEH-SPF, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64933 (M.D. Fl. April 4, 2022),