Creed & Gowdy won a partial reversal of summary judgment in a class action dispute involving an alleged violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). The First District Court of Appeals held that a person "aggrieved" by a violation of FDUTPA can still bring a claim for a declaratory judgment and an injunction, even in the absence of monetary loss or damages. Briefing and oral argument for the case was handled by Bryan Gowdy. The opinion can be found here, and a recording of the oral argument can be found here. 

The New York Times recently had a three-part series on arbitration.  The third part of the series covered religious arbitration agreements and prominently featured the case of Creed & Gowdy's former client, Pamela Spivey, who was compelled to arbitrate under a religious arbitration agreement. The Times article quoted from Bryan Gowdy's brief filed on Ms. Spivey's behalf that argued the religious arbitration agreement violated her First Amendment rights. A copy of the court's opinion in Ms. Spivey's case can be found here. The first two parts of the New York Times series can be found here and here.    

Rebecca Creed was invited by the Florida Justice Association to present two topics during the Offers of Judgment: Proposals for Settlement CLE webinar on October 30, 2015. Ms. Creed discussed strategies for drafting proposals for settlement and information related to extensions of time for responding to proposals for settlement.   

On October 21, 2015, Bryan Gowdy spoke at the Florida Justice Association's seminar on jury selection, held as part of the FJA's "Masters of Justice" event. Mr. Gowdy's presentation focused on "Jury Selection: Case Law You Need to Know for Great Jury Selection."

Creed & Gowdy successfully overturned a trial court's entry of an injunction against a pro-bono client. The First District Court of Appeal held that trial court's actions violated the client's constitutionally guaranteed right to due process. The trial court violated this right when it did not allow the client to present testimony from a law-enforcement witness. The First District reversed the injunction and remanded to the trial court for a new hearing. The opinion can be found here.