Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

..."all Orkin customers who are members of the `Orkin Termite Class' defined above, and were induced to and entered into a Standard Termite Contract based on Orkin's misleading advertisements and representations that violate Florida Statutes, sections 772.104, 817.06, and 817.41." [2] The circuit court certified both the Orkin Termite Class and the Orkin RICO Subclass under rule 1.220(b)(2) and (b)(3)....

...damages in addition to the actual damages proven. § 817.41(6), Fla. Stat. In count III of the complaint, the Appellees pleaded a racketeering claim based on the Appellants' alleged misleading advertisements in violation of section 817.41(1). See §§ 772.104, 817.06....

...dress. We note that customers who succeed in establishing one of the statutory claims pleaded in the complaint would be entitled to an award of attorney's fees. See § 501.2105, Fla. Stat. (FDUTPA); § 817.41(6), Fla. Stat. (misleading advertising); § 772.104, Fla....

...13  Count II, entitled "Claim under the Florida RICO Act," sought treble damages, again in the amount of $72,992,646, under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act ("Florida civil RICO"), Fla.Stat. ch. 772.104 (1997), and equitable relief17 under the Florida RICO Act ("Florida criminal RICO"), Fla.Stat....

...of their motion to tax costs under Rule 54; and Telesat, Group, and Capital appealed the district court's denial of their motion for attorneys' fees for successfully defending JEJ's Florida civil RICO claim. 41 Florida Statutes chapter 772.104 provides that a defendant "shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim which was without substantial fact or legal support."...

...772.103 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts. Fla. Stat. ch. 772.104 (1997)....

...to subsidize each other's procurement of legal advice. 72 and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim which was without substantial fact or legal support." Fla. Stat. ch. 772.104 (1997). The Florida courts have explained that in awarding fees to a defendant under chapter 772.104, "it is not necessary that the court find a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law [or] fact....

...as chapter 57.105, which allows for an attorneys' fee award in any civil action that is found to have been brought frivolously or in bad faith. See Foreman v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 568 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ("The legislature's clear intent in wording section 772.104 as it did was to discourage RICO claims lacking either legal or factual substance by setting a less stringent standard for a fee award than the bad faith standard of section 57.105.")....

...ms or claims brought for the purpose of intimidation because the stigma and burden of defending such claims is so great." Miller, 681 So.2d at 302. Accordingly, the Florida courts consistently have held that "defendants are entitled to fees under section 772.104 where civil RICO counts were dismissed with prejudice or a verdict was directed in the defendant's favor," and have explained that "a defendant may still be entitled to fees on the RICO count even if the plaintiff ultimately prevail...

...The district court denied Telesat's and Group's motions on the ground that neither Telesat nor Group was a prevailing party and, thus, neither was not entitled to costs. Given our disposition of these appeals and of the parties' attorneys' fees claims under Section 35 of the 1987 Contract and Florida Statutes chapter 772.104, we vacate the district court's rulings on costs and remand the case with the instruction that the court reconsider the issue of costs. VII. Our resolution of the appeals is thus as f...

...The 131-count, 246-page, 937-paragraph state- court complaint accused Terminix of numerous violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.; criminal racketeering (i.e., Florida RICO), Fla. Stat. § 772.104; criminal false advertising, Fla....

...The district court therefore concluded that the sales of Telron I and II constituted a pattern of criminal activity as defined in Fla.Stat. § 772.102(4) and § 772.103. These criminal acts were found to comprise the necessary predicate acts to create civil liability under § 772.104, which provides for treble damages for any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that his injury was caused as a result of violations of § 772.103....

...Defendants argue that treble damages should not have been awarded because there was insufficient evidence that Childers and TSI engaged in a “pattern of criminal activity” which proximately caused the damages the Joneses suffered. Florida Statutes § 772.104 provides for an award of treble damages in a civil action when the following requirements are met: Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s....

...e proximately caused by such activity. See Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1311 , 117 L.Ed.2d 532 (1992) (holding that the phrase "by reason of” in federal RICO statute [employing similar language to Fla.Stat. § 772.104] requires that a plaintiff show that the acts in question proximately caused his damages); and Pelletier v....

...claim is denied; 6. On the claim by Claimants for civil theft which the Arbitrators have denied, the Arbitrators find that Claimants raised a claim that had substantial fact and legal support pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 772.104(3)....

...RICO enterprise, and because the RICO count, at least in part, is preempted by federal law. A. Causation: Damage Flowing From Reliance The nurseries sought a treble damages award against DuPont in this products liability case under the provisions of section 772.104 of the Florida Statutes. That section provides that "[a]ny person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation" of Florida's RICO act, may recover "threefold the actual damages sustained...." § 772.104, Fla....

...he faces an additional hurdle before he can obtain recovery: he must show not only that the mail or wire fraud statutes have been violated, but also that he has suffered injury as a result of the violation. Section 1964(c)[the federal counterpart of section 772.104 of the Florida Statutes] provides civil remedies to those persons who are injured "by reason of" racketeering activity.......

...However, Gurdian's testimony reflects only his receipt of this letter; there is no testimony that he relied on it or communicated its content to anyone. This cannot be deemed "clear and convincing evidence" of "injury by reason of violation of the provisions of s. 772.103" as mandated by section 772.104. § 772.104, Fla....

...quire a showing of reasonable reliance. [22] ( Id. ). DuPont pointed out during oral argument that RICO still requires that the plaintiff link the damages suffered to the conduct alleged to form the predicate act. (Transcript at 80). Florida Statute § 772.104 allows a person to bring a civil RICO claim if "he has been injured by reason of" any RICO violation....

...denied, 790 So.2d 1107 (Fla.2001). According to RLS Business Ventures, "the civil damages provisions of the federal and the Florida Statutes are strikingly similar" and "federal cases interpreting the federal civil damages remedy are also persuasive in interpreting section 772.104." Id....

...Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Miller with regard to Count VIII, defamation. Count XIII: Florida RICO. In the final surviving count of their complaint, Anthony alleges a cause of action under Florida's RICO statute, Fla.Stat. § 772.104 (1995)....

...Therefore, the Court denies Anthony's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Count XIII, their Florida RICO cause of action. Despite evidence of Miller's bribery, however, Anthony fails to advance sufficient evidence of any "injury" Anthony received "by reason of" Miller's bribery. Fla.Stat. § 772.104....

...ed Corrupt Organization Act, 5) sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 6) violation of § 542.18 of Florida's Antitrust Act, 7) violation of § 542.19 of Florida's Antitrust Law, 8) violation of Florida Statute Section 772.104, 9) violation of Florida Statute Section 772.11, 10) tortious interference with a business relationship, and 11) breach of contract....

...The appellants opted to litigate their claims in federal district court. See DiMuccio v. D'Ambra, 750 F. Supp. 495, 497 (M.D. Fla. 1990). [2] See Foreman v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 568 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), holding similar language found in section 772.104, Florida Statutes, to be interpreted as authorizing attorney's fees where a claim lacks either legal or factual substance.

...Balcor Property Management, Inc. v. Ahronovitz, 634 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994). If the civil theft claim is successful, the Plaintiff is entitled to treble damages, as long as there is no contractual relationship between the parties. Fla.Stat. § 772.104; see also Leisure Founders, Inc....

...Sharps, 214 So.2d 492 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1968); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Parker, 156 B.R. 858 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.1993); In re Triggiano, *1265 132 B.R. 486 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1991). In contrast, civil theft requires the higher clear and convincing evidence standard. Fla.Stat. § 772.104....

...ory law. Fla.Stat.Ann., § 812.012 (WEST 1990). A party seeking to recover under Florida's civil theft law must prove his case by clear and convincing evidence. See, Stein v. Miller Industries, Inc., 564 So.2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Fla.Stat. Ann. § 772.104 (WEST 1990)....

...lternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE 187]. . In his opposition, Caravella argues that the Florida RICO statute, unlike its federal counterpart does not require an injury to business or property. City Response at 27 (citing Fla. Stat. § 772.104 (1))....

...Falco, Deerfield Beach, for appellant. Boose, Casey, Ciklin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O'Connell and John D. Boykin, West Palm Beach, for appellees. Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ. NESBITT, Judge. This is an appeal of an attorney's fee award to a defendant pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Appellees filed a limited motion to dismiss the complaint along with a memorandum of law addressing the Florida RICO count. Appellant Foreman filed a memorandum of law in opposition. The court granted dismissal with prejudice of the Florida RICO count. Appellees then moved, pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989), [1] for an award of attorney's fees and costs expended in obtaining the dismissal with prejudice of the Florida RICO count....

...At a hearing on that motion, the trial judge orally ruled that plaintiff's Florida RICO claim was without substantial fact or legal support and granted the motion awarding fees. The trial judge later entered a written order memorializing his oral findings. On appeal, Foreman claims that section 772.104 (applicable solely to fee awards in civil causes of action brought under the Florida RICO Act) should be construed in pari materia with section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1989) (applicable to fee awards in any civil action found to have been brought frivolously or in bad faith). We disagree. While section 57.105 requires a finding of a "complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact" before a losing party would be obligated to pay the opposing party's attorney's fees, section 772.104 necessitates a finding that the claim "was without substantial fact or legal support." The legislature's clear intent in wording section 772.104 as it did was to discourage RICO claims lacking either legal or factual substance by setting a less stringent standard for a fee award than the bad faith standard of section 57.105....

...Co., 410 So.2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1982) ("Statutes authorizing an award of attorney's fees are in derogation of the common law. Therefore, such statutes must be strictly construed."); Kittel v. Kittel, 210 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1967) (same). Foreman further claims that even if sections 772.104 and 57.105 cannot be read in pari materia, the fee award must still be reversed because it could not rightly contain the requisite finding that the Florida RICO count was without substantial factual support. While it is true that the case was disposed of on the pleadings and thus the facts of the case were not fully developed, section 772.104 is obviously drawn in the disjunctive in its reference to claims lacking "substantial fact or legal support" so as to discourage both claims of insufficient legal substance and, in the alternative, those lacking an evidentiary foundation....

...See Whitten, Kittel. Thus, the trial court acted within its discretion in ruling that based on the pleadings, and consequently as a matter of law, the RICO claim lacked substantial legal support, entitling the defendants to attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 772.104. [2] Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court. NOTES [1] The pertinent language of section 772.104 states: The defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim which was without substantial fact or legal support....

...Perwin of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin, P.A., Miami, for appellees. THREADGILL, Judge. The appellant, Marie Ziccardi, challenges the dismissal of her second amended complaint for civil damages based on alleged violations of section 772.104, [1] the Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act. The basis of the complaint, filed in 1987 under section 772.104 Florida Statutes, was alleged criminal acts perpetrated against her by the appellees in 1979. She contends that the trial court erred in finding her claims subject to dismissal on grounds that chapter 772 did not become effective until 1986. We reverse in part and affirm in part. The issue presented to us is whether section 772.104, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1986, may be applied retroactively to allow a civil cause of action based on incidents which happened in 1979....

...The appellant argues that this statute was procedural in nature, designed to correct problems in section 895.05(7), Florida Statute (1985), and that while statutes are generally to be applied prospectively, remedial, or procedural, statutes are applied retroactively. The appellees contend that because section 772.104 requires proof of injury only by "clear and convincing evidence" rather than by the standard civil burden of proof, preponderance of the evidence, the legislature created a new substantive crime, barring retroactive application of the statute....

...f the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing, do not come within ... the general rule against retrospective operation of statutes." City of Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So.2d 133, 136 (Fla. 1961). We look first to the legislative history of section 772.104 to determine whether it is remedial in nature, and thus subject to retroactive application....

...895.05 F.S.; limiting a civil remedy to the state;" and as "providing a civil action to victims of certain criminal activities. Section 895.05(7), Florida Statutes (1985), had provided private victims a civil remedy for the identical conduct as did the newly created section 772.104....

...Halligan, 344 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1977), the supreme court found that the burden of proof is a procedural matter and held that although a "statute modified plaintiff's burden of proof requirement, ... it did not abrogate a substantive statutory right." Id. at 243. Although section 772.104 does not provide for punitive damages as did section 895.05(7) [2] in the RICO act, the appellant did not file her complaint until section 895.05(7) had been repealed and no accrued rights had vested in the remedies previously provided. See generally Winter Haven v. Allen, 541 So.2d 128, 131-135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Cf. Clausell v. Hobart Corp., 515 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1987); Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1982). Because we find that section 772.104 was a remedial reenactment, designed to correct problems resulting from the inclusion of its RICO predecessor provision, section 895.05(7), Florida Statutes (1977), in the criminal statutes, it may be applied retroactively....

...or damages to the "state, including any of its agencies, instrumentalities, subdivisions, or municipalities... ." The amendatory process relocated that aspect of section 812.035 conferring the ability of "any person" to pursue a civil theft claim to section 772.104 and elevated the standard of proof to the "clear and convincing" level. Hence, at the moment when Stein's trial began, the question was whether proof of the alleged cause of action was governed by the then newly created section 772.104. The trial court, in rejecting Stein's proposed instruction apparently concluded that section 772.104's "clear and convincing" standard was not applicable....

...Against the foregoing backdrop, an appropriate basis for determining this matter is found in the Second District's recent opinion in Ziccardi v. Strother, No. 89-01538 (Fla. 2nd DCA May 18, 1990) [15 F.L.W. D1382]. The analysis in Ziccardi points up that the legislative modifications affecting sections 812.035(7) and 772.104 did not alter vested rights....

...Rather, consistent with Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1977), increasing the burden of proof to a "clear and convincing" standard did not amount to a substantive change in the statutory scheme. In sum, we concur in the Ziccardi view that section 772.104 was a remedial reenactment undertaken for the purpose of realigning the criminal code. In that circumstance, the standard of proof prescribed in section 772.104 and sought by Stein's requested instruction was retrospectively applicable and the correct standard with which the jury should have been charged....

...Ct.App.1993) (affirming award of fees where plaintiff failed to show that person committing theft was an agent or employee of defendant); Moral Majority, Inc. v. Broward Cty. Ch. of the Nat. Organization for Women, Inc., 606 So.2d 630 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App. 1992) (reversing denial of fees under similar provision of § 772.104 where no evidence presented that defendant did anything that was not protected under First Amendment)....

...tion 624.155(2), a party may make a claim against an insurer, not an individual. Therefore, Bortell has no cause of action pursuant to the statute against the individual defendants. As a second cause of action, Bortell alleges violations of sections 772.104(1), 772.103(3), and 772.102(1)(a)10., Florida Statutes, which are RICO claims....

...d their agency agreement with him. *1047 Although all of the appellees argue that Bortell has failed to plead each element of a RICO claim, we focus on the requirement that Bortell's claimed damages must be proximately caused by the RICO violations. Section 772.104(1) provides, "Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s....

...other claim (the conspiracy count) which arose out of the same facts, appellant was not entitled to an award even though the court made a finding that the plaintiff had not proved criminal intent. In construing a similar attorney's fee provision in section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989), the Third District in Foreman v....

...3d DCA 1990) compared that provision to section 57.105, Florida Statutes which provides for attorney's fees where there is a "complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact." The court stated: The legislative's clear intent in wording section 772.104 as it did was to discourage RICO claims lacking either legal or factual substance by setting a less stringent standard for a fee award than the bad faith standard of section 57.105 (citations omitted). ... . [S]ection 772.104 is obviously drawn in the disjunctive in its reference to claims lacking "substantial fact or legal support" so as to discourage both claims of insufficient legal substance and, in the alternative, those lacking an evidentiary foundation....

...l measures. See Gillette v. Stapleton, 336 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Foliage Corp. of Fla. v. Watson, 381 So.2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bank of Miami v. Tambourine, 218 So.2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); 18 Am.Jur.2d Conversion §§ 117-121 (1985); § 772.104, Fla....

...and dismissed several of the claims, but not all of them, without prejudice. However, the court did not remand the state claims until July 7, 1993. In May of 1993, appellees filed a second motion seeking attorney's fees pursuant to sections 57.105, 772.104 and 895.05(7), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...amended complaint) did not make the claim frivolous. Thus, to the extent the award was based upon section 57.105(1), it was erroneous. However, as the appellees correctly contend, the trial court's award of attorney's fees was also based on sections 772.104 and 895.05(7) of the Florida Statutes (1993), and the appellees argue that the award was properly made pursuant to these statutory provisions. Section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the defendant in a civil action brought under that statute "shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and *1025 costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the clai...

...Florida Statutes (1993), contains a virtually identical provision, with the sole variation being the substitution of the word "factual" for "fact." The standard for determining entitlement to attorney's fees is slightly less stringent under sections 772.104 and 895.05(7) than the bad faith standard of section 57.105. See Foreman v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 568 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (discussing standard under section 772.104). While section 57.105 requires a finding of a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact before a losing party would be obligated to pay the opposing party's attorney's fees, section 772.104 (and presumably section 895.05(7)) merely necessitates a finding that the claim was without substantial fact or legal support....

...el from conduct or the failure to object, fatal to an award of attorney's fees. Coffey v. Evans Properties, Inc., 585 So.2d 960, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). In Coffey, this court reversed an order awarding appellee attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 772.104, where the appellee had failed to mention attorney's fees in its motion attacking the sufficiency of the appellant's claims and its later motion for fees failed to cite any statutory basis for them....

...prevailing party the sum of reasonable costs incurred in the action plus a reasonable legal fee for the hours actually spent on the case. . . ."). [4] Ch. 772, Fla. Stat. (2001) (providing for civil actions for certain criminal practices). See also § 772.104 (authorizing treble actual damages and entitling the prevailing party to reasonable attorney's fees)....

...rise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt." ง 772.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Criminal activity includes several predicate crimes named in section 772.104(1), Florida Statutes, and a "pattern of criminal activity" under the Florida RICO Act consists of engaging in at least two incidents of criminal activity that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods...

...Chance entities, [1] over a failed used car business. The Second Chance entities prevailed on their claims and on RLS's counterclaims and third party claims. They then moved for attorney's fees on three grounds: 1. a contract between the parties; 2. section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1995); and 3....

...The circuit court awarded fees on all these bases. We reverse the fee award with the exception of the contractual fees granted for services rendered on the replevin count. RLS asserted a counterclaim against Second Chance based on the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, section 772.104....

...aim, and we affirmed that ruling in RLS's appeal of the final judgment on the merits. RLS Bus. Ventures, Inc. v. Second Chance Wholesale, Inc., 779 So.2d 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (" RLS I "). Generally, defendants are entitled to attorney's fees under section 772.104 when a verdict is directed in *1196 their favor....

...Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest v. Miller, 681 So.2d 301, 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In this case, however, the directed verdict was founded on RLS's failure to prove a separate racketeering injury. As we will discuss below, whether a plaintiff under section 772.104 must prove that it has suffered a racketeering injury is arguable....

...v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985), holds that a RICO plaintiff is not required to prove a racketeering injury. [2] No Florida authority has decided whether the reasoning of those cases applies to actions under section 772.104. We need not do so here because we have already affirmed the directed verdict on RLS's section 772.104 claim on a different ground....

...case under the Beck rationale. We hold that RLS's claim was not without substantial factual or legal support, notwithstanding that the jury ultimately rejected its usury allegations. We reverse the award of attorney's fees to Second Chance based on section 772.104....

...st RLS, one count for replevin of over 60 motor vehicles, the other for damages of $8,700. Seminole had pending claims for damages and replevin of office equipment. RLS had asserted third party claims or counterclaims based on breach of contract and section 772.104....

...lusion of a civil damages remedy in a criminal statute. See Ziccardi v. Strother, 570 So.2d 1319, 1321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Because the civil damages provisions of the federal and the Florida statutes are strikingly similar, see 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); § 772.104, Fla. Stat., we believe federal cases interpreting the federal civil damages remedy are also persuasive in interpreting section 772.104....

...The trial court dismissed the section 772.103 claims with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action, but his other claims remain pending. Meanwhile Evans moved for costs and attorney's fees to be assessed against Coffey for the dismissed claims, without mentioning section 772.104 or any other statutory or contractual basis for fees....

...in Foreman v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 568 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990). But we do not find in that opinion any argument that the fee issue was not ripe until final judgment. Rather, it appears that Foreman opposed the fee award only on the grounds that section 772.104 had to be read like section 57.105 and that, even if it did not, the trial court in that case could not properly find that the failed RICO claims lacked "substantial fact [sic] or legal support". Even if we could read Foreman as addressing the ripeness issue, we should respectfully disagree that the issue was ripe under the facts of this case. In a case of interrelated claims, we think that section 772.104 should be read to preclude taking up the fee issue until a final judgment has been rendered....

...al. We do not know whether the trial judge will allow the section 772.103 claims to be renewed or added again before trial. We also have no way of knowing whether he might exercise his discretion to allow Evans to raise an attorney's fee claim under section 772.104 in a later pleading. It is enough for us on this record to note that Evans did not previously plead any right to section 772.104 fees before moving for fees, and when it did file the motion it failed to cite this or any other statute....

...iminal, under this chapter or any other provision of law. Civil remedies under this act are supplemental, and not mutually exclusive. (Emphasis added). By legislative declaration, the statutory causes of action for civil theft (and, for that matter, section 772.104, Florida Statutes, the cause of action for racketeering) are in addition to any other remedies—and therefore are in addition to any remedy which might exist for breach of contract....

...d the defendant's claim for attorney's fees on the basis that it did not find that the plaintiff's "claims were frivolous." On appeal, the defendant contends that, pursuant to Foreman v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 568 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990) and section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1995), the trial court erred in failing to award him attorney's fees for successfully defending against the civil theft count....

...Florida's civil theft statute provides that defendants in actions for civil theft "are entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim which was without substantial fact or legal support". See §§ 772.104 & 772.11, Fla....

...acking in legal or factual substance". Id. at 1325. We must therefore remand for the trial court to determine, without regard to plaintiff's having prevailed in her claim for accounting, whether the defendant is entitled to fees pursuant to sections 772.104 and 772.11....

...§§ 1961, 1962 and 1964 (Counts I-VI); common law unjust enrichment based on the Florida Professional Service Corporations and Limited Liability Companies Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 621, et seq. (Count VII); common law fraud (Count VIII); as well as the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 772.104 and 772.11 (Counts IX-X); and, Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief (Count XI) and declaratory judgments (Counts XII-XIV) in addition to monetary damages (DE # 1)....

...based upon their violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1962 and 1964 (Counts I-VI); common-law fraud (Count VIII); and the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 772.104 and 772.11 (Counts IX-X) (DE # 1)....

...¶¶ 338-40). D. Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act (Counts IX-X) Plaintiffs have successfully pled two causes of action under Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act: namely, Fla. Stat. § 772.11 (Count IX) and Fla. Stat. § 772.104 (Count X)....

...Finally, by alleging that Defendants did not respond to Plaintiffs' demand for return of the insurance proceeds fraudulently obtained, Plaintiffs have satisfied the pre-suit demand requirements imposed by Fla. Stat. § 772.11 (DE # 1 at 95, ¶ 344). 2. Fla. Stat. § 772.104 (Count X) Plaintiffs have also asserted a cause of action in Count X by showing that they were injured as a result of Defendants' pattern of criminal activity. Fla. Stat. §§ 772.103, 772.104. Section 772.104 entitles Plaintiffs to treble damages upon a showing that they were injured by virtue of Defendants' violation of section 772.103, which prohibits any person from using proceeds directly or indirectly derived from a pattern of crimina...

...d by the plaintiffs as a result of those acts). The same holds true for the measure of damages under Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act (the so-called "Florida RICO Act"), which Plaintiffs allege in Counts IX and X. See Fla. Stat. §§ 772.104(1); 772.11(1); see also Palmas Y Bambu, S.A. v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 881 So.2d 565, 570 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct. App.2004) (holding, in an action under 772.104, that the plaintiff must show that "his injury was caused by, that is, his damage was `by reason of,' the predicate mail or wire fraud acts."); Anthony Distrib., Inc....

...Treble Damages Under the plain language of the RICO Act, as well as under Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, the final judgment must reflect an amount that is three times the amount of actual damages. See 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); Fla. Stat. § 772.11(1); Fla. Stat. § 772.104(1)....

...ul plaintiffs."). Likewise, successful plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs under Florida's Civil Remedy for Criminal Practices Act, which are the violations alleged in Counts IX and X of the Complaint. See Fla. Stat. §§ 772.11 and 772.104 (providing that the prevailing plaintiff is "entitled to ....

...U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., and the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. • Count 2 against Defendant Albertson for a pattern of extortion activity in violation of the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Florida's RICO Act), FLA. STAT. § 772.104....

...Ciarmello v. D'Ambra, 613 So.2d 1324, 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 599 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1992). See also Foreman v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 568 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (discussing standard under identically worded attorney's fees provision of section 772.104)....

...It is unnecessary for the court to find a complete absence of legal and factual support for a civil theft claim before making an award of attorney's fees under section 772.11. 613 So.2d at 1325. In summary, we agree with our sister court which said under similar circumstances: [S]ection 772.104 is obviously drawn in the disjunctive in its reference to claims lacking `substantial fact or legal support' so as to discourage both claims of insufficient legal substance and, in the alternative, those lacking an evidentiary foundation... . Thus, the trial court acted within its discretion in ruling that based on the pleadings, and consequently as a matter of law, the RICO claim lacked substantial legal support, entitling the defendants to attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 772.104....

...2d DCA) (statute articulating burden of proof in cases regarding covenants not to compete did not affect existing substantive right to enforce such contracts by injunction, and was remedial), review denied, 591 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1991); Ziccardi v. Strother, 570 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (section 772.104, enacted in 1986 to correct problems resulting from including its RICO predecessor, section 895.05, in the criminal statutes, was remedial, and applicable to cause of action that accrued in 1979)....

...The appellants opted to litigate their claims in federal district court. See DiMuccio v. D'Ambra, 750 F. Supp. 495, 497 (M.D. Fla. 1990). [2] See Foreman v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 568 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), holding similar language found in section 772.104, Florida Statutes, to be interpreted as authorizing attorney's fees where a claim lacks either legal or factual substance.

Criminal Procedures Act (“CRCPA”), Florida Statute § 772.104 (count seven) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

...At the start of trial, Cura admitted liability for the actions pled in the complaint and the trial proceeded solely on the issue of damages. The jury awarded Haddad $7,200 for past dental expenses and $5,000 for pain and suffering. Haddad moved post-trial, among other things, to treble these damages under section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...The trial court denied the motion for treble damages on the grounds that the jury had been instructed to base any award of damages upon the "preponderance of the evidence" presented rather than upon the "clear and convincing" standard prescribed in section 772.104. Therefore, Haddad had not met her burden to establish her entitlement to treble damages. Haddad argues on appeal that section 772.104 does not require her to establish her damages by clear and convincing evidence and that once Cura admitted liability and the jury awarded damages based upon the "preponderance" standard, a trebling of such an award was mandatory and nothing more than a ministerial act to be performed by the trial court. We disagree. Section 772.104 states in relevant part that: Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s....

..."all Orkin customers who are members of the `Orkin Termite Class' defined above, and were induced to and entered into a Standard Termite Contract based on Orkin's misleading advertisements and representations that violate Florida Statutes, sections 772.104, 817.06, and 817.41." [2] The circuit court certified both the Orkin Termite Class and the Orkin RICO Subclass under rule 1.220(b)(2) and (b)(3)....

...damages in addition to the actual damages proven. § 817.41(6), Fla. Stat. In count III of the complaint, the Appellees pleaded a racketeering claim based on the Appellants' alleged misleading advertisements in violation of section 817.41(1). See §§ 772.104, 817.06....

...dress. We note that customers who succeed in establishing one of the statutory claims pleaded in the complaint would be entitled to an award of attorney's fees. See § 501.2105, Fla. Stat. (FDUTPA); § 817.41(6), Fla. Stat. (misleading advertising); § 772.104, Fla....

...772.103 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to a minimum damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts. Fla. Stat. § 772.104 (1).

conspire to do so. § 772.103, Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 772.104(1) provides civil remedies for violations of

...3rd DCA 1990) (concluding that trial court acted within its discretion in ruling that based on the pleadings, and consequently as a matter of law, a RICO claim lacked substantial legal support, entitling the defendants to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989))....

was without substantial fact or legal support.” § 772.104, Fla.Stat. (1993). Affirmed in part, reversed

found that Miller was entitled to fees under section 772.104 and granted same, which order is the subject

...ut credible extension or interpretation of the law.” S & HRiggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 672 F.2d 426 , 431 (5th Cir.1982). The order awarding fees to the defendants-appellees is reversed. 3 . Section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989), entitles a defendant to reasonable attorney’s fees *318 and court costs upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim which was without substantial fact or legal support....

...civil RICO claim. 5 A successful defendant in a civil RICO action can recover fees when the RICO claim is “without substantial fact or legal support.” Foreman v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 568 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (affirming fees under section 772.104 when the case was disposed of on the pleadings alone); see also Roth, 647 So.2d at 1025 (noting that the standard for awarding fees under sections 772.104 and 895.01 is “slightly less stringent” than the “bad faith” standard of section 57.105)....

...il conspiracy between the Debtor and an entity known as Nar.co Realty, Inc. (Narco); in Count II on an alleged violation of Florida’s anti-trust statute, Fla.Stat. § 542.18; and, in Count III on an alleged violation of Fla.Stat. §§ 772.103, and 772.104, the Florida civil Rico Statute, rendering the Debtor liable for treble damages....

...hout merit. Fla.Stat. § 772.103 states: Fla.Stat. § 772.103 Prohibited activities. It is unlawful for any person: who has with criminal intent received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of criminal activity ... Fla.Stat. § 772.104 Civil cause of action....

...Provides that any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained [[Image here]] Fla.Stat. § 772.104 clearly indicates that the burden of proof to establish a viable claim pursuant to § 772.104 requires clear and convincing evidence to show that the person charged with engaging in prohibited activities had a criminal intent and received proceeds from a pattern of criminal activity....

...There is nothing in this record which warrants that the Debtor acted with criminal intent and, moreover, the record is devoid of any evidence that the Debtor was engaged in a pattern of criminal activity both of which are indispensable elements of a viable claim under § 772.104....

...es in the project. Its Agreement with Narco had none of the characteristics of a classic criminal pattern required under this Statute. In sum, this Court is satisfied that the claimants equally failed to establish a viable claim under § 772.103 and § 772.104....

...We also reverse the order holding the appellant in civil contempt because there was no purge provision, and the fine was unsupported by evidence of an injured party’s actual loss. JPG Enters., Inc. v. Viterito, 841 So.2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We affirm the denial of attorney’s fees to appellants under section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1995)....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. The standard of review of an order denying attorney’s fees requested under section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1987), is whether the trial court abused its discretion....

...Count VI alleges a civil rights action—that respondents have violated petitioners' right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. section 13981. Finally, count VII seeks civil remedies for criminal practices or racketeering pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes....

PER CURIAM. Because we find that there was substantial factual and legal support for appellee’s claim, see § 772.104, Fla.Stat....

...18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Count II, entitled “Claim under the Florida RICO Act,” sought treble damages, again in the amount of $72,992,646, under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act (“Florida civil RICO”), Fla. Stat. ch. 772.104 (1997), and equitable relief17 under the Florida RICO Act (“Florida criminal RICO”), Fla....

...including those involving willful, wanton, or gross misconduct, a judgment for punitive damages may not exceed three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded. See Fla. Stat. ch. 768.73(1)(a) (1997). 41 Florida Statutes chapter 772.104 provides that a defendant “shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim which was without substantial fact or legal support.”...

...772.103 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts. Fla. Stat. ch. 772.104 (1997)....

...The statute provides that a defendant in an action brought under chapter 772 “shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim which was without substantial fact or legal support.” Fla. Stat. ch. 772.104 (1997). The Florida courts have explained that in awarding fees to a defendant under chapter 772.104, “it is not necessary that the court find a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law [or] fact....

...allows for an attorneys’ fee award in any civil action that is found to have been brought frivolously or in bad faith. See Foreman v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 568 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (“The legislature’s clear intent in wording section 772.104 as it did was to discourage RICO claims lacking either legal or factual substance by setting a less stringent standard for a fee award than the bad faith standard of section 57.105.”)....

...r claims brought for the purpose of intimidation because the stigma and burden of defending such claims is so great.” Miller, 681 So.2d at 302. Accordingly, the Florida courts consistently have held that “defendants are entitled to fees under section 772.104 where civil RICO counts were dismissed with prejudice or a verdict was directed in the defendant’s favor,” and have explained that “a defendant may still be entitled to fees on the RICO count even if the plaintiff ultimately p...

...on the ground that neither Telesat nor Group was a prevailing party and, thus, neither was not entitled to costs. Given our disposition of these appeals and of the parties’ attorneys’ fees claims under Section 35 of the 1987 Contract and Florida Statutes chapter 772.104, we vacate the district court’s rulings on costs and remand the case with the instruction that the court reconsider the issue of costs. VII. Our resolution of the appeals is thus...

attorneys' fees pursuant to the note, guaranty and section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1993).

PER CURIAM. Steven Black, the plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment in favor of the defendant following a bench trial. We affirm. *582 The plaintiff sued the defendant for civil theft. See § 772.104, Fla....

...Lawson, initiated an action seeking injunc-tive relief and damages stemming from conduct attributed to James Mulieri and his wife, Patricia. The present appeal involves issues originating in the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to the Mulieris pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...POWERS: Your Honor, while we’re talking about that, that was not pled in the amended complaint or any other complaints so we’d certainly— ... THE COURT: All right. Now are you seeking treble damages on the assault and battery charge? MR. MC CLUNG: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Under 772.104? MR....

...to grant the Mulieris’ motion for a directed verdict. The question of chapter 772’s relevance to the underlying litigation is now, however, before us in the aftermath of the trial court’s determination to award fees to the Mulieris based upon section 772.104, the pertinent part of which provides that: “The defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim which was without...

...erroneous, benefitting the Lawsons. Hence, it may seem at first blush that the Lawsons are foreclosed from repudiation of their attorney’s mistaken utterances which produced the directed verdict and resultant exposure to the fee burden created by section 772.104....

...As meritless as the Law-sons’ common law action was, demonstrated by our affirmance in Lawson I, the sudden calling into play of chapter 772 at the end of the Lawsons’ evidence came unfairly late in the day. The Lawsons did not try their action with chapter 772 in mind. The language of section 772.104, conditioning the award of attorney’s fees “upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim,” cannot be glossed over because of the unsound behavior of the Lawsons’ attorney....