Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantattorneystatutetrialspecific performancecivil procedurebench trialequitable relief
contractdefendantattorneystatute

Related Cases

Gianetti v. Norwalk Hosp., 64 Conn.App. 218, 779 A.2d 847
View Case »
Burlington Group, Inc. v. Chardon Lakes Inn Restaurant, Inc., Not Reported in N.E.2d, 1995 WL 236919
View Case »
Henker v. Preybylowski, 216 N.J.Super. 513, 524 A.2d 455
View Case »
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494, 60 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 633, 60 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,881, 61 USLW 4033
View Case »
Poltorak v. Jackson Chevrolet Co., 322 Mass. 699, 79 N.E.2d 285
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2010 WL 11474257

Facts

In June 2004, Alan Horowitch entered into a contract with Diamond Aircraft to purchase a D-Jet aircraft for $850,000. In August 2006, Diamond breached the contract by demanding $1,380,000 for the aircraft. Horowitch filed a lawsuit asserting claims for specific performance, breach of contract, breach of implied covenants, and deceptive trade practices. After a bench trial, the court found that Diamond did not violate the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

In June 2004, Alan Horowitch entered into a contract with Diamond Aircraft to purchase a D-Jet aircraft for $850,000. In August 2006, Diamond breached the contract by demanding $1,380,000 for the aircraft.

Issue

Whether Diamond Aircraft is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs under Florida's offer of judgment statute and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Whether Diamond Aircraft is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs under Florida's offer of judgment statute and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Rule

Under Florida's offer of judgment statute, a defendant may recover attorney's fees if they make a formal offer of judgment that is not accepted by the plaintiff and the plaintiff does not recover a judgment.

Under the American Rule, a prevailing party is ordinarily not entitled to recover attorney's fees except by contract or statute.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the offer of judgment made by Diamond was valid and applicable to the case. It considered the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 and determined that the offer was procedurally defective because it lacked a certificate of service. Additionally, the court found that the claims brought by Horowitch included equitable relief, which may not fall under the offer of judgment statute.

The court analyzed whether the offer of judgment made by Diamond was valid and applicable to the case.

Conclusion

The court recommended denying Diamond's application for attorney's fees and costs, concluding that the offer of judgment was not valid and that Diamond was not entitled to fees under the applicable statutes.

Based upon the foregoing, I respectfully recommend that the Court DENY Defendant's Application for Attorney's Fees and Costs, Doc. No. 196.

Who won?

Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found no violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and ruled in their favor on the claims brought by Horowitch.

Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found no violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and ruled in their favor on the claims brought by Horowitch.

You must be