Bryan Gowdy and Meredith Ross represent Nadia Caro in a federal declaratory action filed by Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc. Shands sued Ms. Caro, its patient, after she asserted her state constitutional right under Amendment 7 to access adverse medical incident documents relating to her care. United States District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan recently heard arguments on Ms. Caro's motion to dismiss Shands' complaint.
A Law360 article describing the hearing can be viewed here. (subscription required).
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 Bryan Gowdy argued before the11th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Appellants, Joselyn and Steve Santiago. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the appellate court held oral argument via telephone.
Mr. Gowdy argued whether Florida's four-year statute of limitations should apply in the federal wrongful death lawsuit and urged the appellate court to find the trial court erroneous in granting summary judgment for United Technologies Corp.
Listen to the oral argument here.
To read more about the case, please visit Law.com or Courthouse News Service.
Bryan Gowdy represents the Respondent in Wilsonart LLC et al. v. Lopez, Case No. SC19-1336, in which the Supreme Court of Florida is considering whether to change Florida's summary judgment standard. Law360 has named Wilsonart as the number one case to watch in Florida in 2020.
To read the full article, Click Here.
Thomas Burns, Of-Counsel to Creed & Gowdy, P.A. was featured in the first Issue of the 2020 Florida Bar Journal. Burns and his colleague, Arda Goker, discuss the differences among federal and state appellate finality doctrines and explain how to file federal and state notices of appeal. This publication concludes with the revelation that federal and state finality doctrines are "deceptively dissimilar".
The read the full article, Click Here.
Ms. Creed was retained by Ms. Davis, the Former Wife and Appellant in a case on appeal in the 5th DCA from St. Johns County, Florida. In her reply brief and during oral argument, Ms. Creed argued that the trial court erred in setting aside the magistrate's order and recommendations and that compentent, substantial evidence supported the magistrate's findings that changes in circumstance supported the Former Wife's need for a modified alimony award. In their December 20, 2019 opinion, the 5th DCA agreed. Read the opinion here.