Cases from cite.case.law:

AVP DESTINY, LLC, a V. III, V. d b a v. FD DESTINY, LLC, Co- A. LLC, FD LLC, f k a, 267 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Pursuant to the civil theft statute, section 772.11, Florida Statutes, the court trebled that amount. . . .

TOOLE, v. STATE, 270 So. 3d 371 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . App. 2015) (citing § 772.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2012) ). See supra note 18 and accompanying text. . . .

FLORIDA RECOVERY ADJUSTERS, LLC v. PRETIUM HOMES, LLC,, 261 So. 3d 664 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Subsequently, based on section 772.11(1), Florida Statutes (2014), Pretium alleged a civil theft claim . . . In addition, the Florida Civil Theft Statute, section 772.11(1), Florida Statutes (2014), provides that . . . In addition to Pretium's failure to comply with sections 772.11(1) and 812.014(1), Pretium's complaint . . .

CONTINENTAL FUND, LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC LLC, v. ALBERTELLI, LLC, LLC, MFDC, LLC, CCR, LLC, US LLC, KMM LLC, L. L. C., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (M.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . . § 772.11. Defendants argue Count 4 should be dismissed for two reasons. . . . Florida Statute 772.11 requires that "[b]efore filing an action for damages under this section, the person . . . But the language of Florida Statute 772.11 is clear. . . . Plaintiffs must serve a demand on George Albertelli under Florida Statute 772.11 within ten (10) days . . .

HIMMELBERG, v. HIMMELBERG, 244 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . letters, Appellees filed a complaint seeking damages for (among other claims) civil theft under section 772.11 . . .

ROBINSON, v. K. ROBINSON,, 248 So. 3d 174 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 772.11, Fla. Stat. See City of Gainesville v. . . .

ROLLAS, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,, 243 So. 3d 474 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . JOHN ROLLAS provided Defendants with the statutory demand letter for Civil Theft under Section 772.11 . . .

FLO EDDIE, INC. a v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC. a, 709 F. App'x 661 (11th Cir. 2018)

. . . . § 772.11 and Fla. Stat. § 812.014? Id. at 1025. . . .

FLATIRONS BANK, v. ALAN W. STEINBERG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,, 233 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 772.11, Fla.- Stat. (2013). . . . .

FLO EDDIE, INC. v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., 229 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 2017)

. . . misappropriation and unfair competition; . (3) common law conversion;,- and (4) civil theft under section 772.11 . . . Stat. § 772.11 and Fla. Stat. § 812.014? Id. at 1025. C. . . . Stat. § 772.11 and Fla. Stat. § 812.014? Flo & Eddie, 827 F.3d at 1025. . . .

ORTIZ, v. ORTIZ,, 227 So. 3d 730 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . orders or judgment,- it is unclear whether 'the trial court awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 772.11 . . .

L. ZURRO, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., 209 So. 3d 27 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Zurro’s attorney’s fees pursuant to section 772.11, Florida Statutes (2011). . . .

WACHOVIA BANK N. A. f. k. a. v. Dr. TIEN, a a BWI, AUC P. OMS, 658 F. App'x 471 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 772.11 (providing civil remedy for theft); United Techs. Corp. v. . . .

FLO EDDIE, INC. a v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC. a, 827 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 772.11 for violations of Fla. Stat. § 812.014(1). . . . Stat. § 772.11 and Fla. Stat. § 812.014? . . .

PARHAM, v. SEATTLE SERVICE BUREAU, INC. a, 224 F. Supp. 3d 1268 (M.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . the Florida Statutes (the “Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act” or “FCCPA”), and (iii) Section 772.11 . . .

GREAT WALL DE VENEZUELA C. A. v. INTERAUDI BANK, v. ICA, 117 F. Supp. 3d 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Florida’s civil theft statute, Florida Statutes § 772.11, affords a private cause of action for treble . . . Stat. §§ 772.11, 812.014). . . .

IN RE TREXLER, J. v., 528 B.R. 842 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2015)

. . . . § 772.11, as well as Fla. Stat. § 57.105. . . . Section 772.11 awards fees and costs to the prevailing party under the civil theft statute. . . . Stat. § 772.11, provides in relevant part: (1) Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence . . .

S. M. v. STATE, 159 So. 3d 966 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See § 772.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. CR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v., 90 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . calculated as the sum of the amount of the verdict ($141,551.20), trebled pursuant to Florida Statutes § 772.11 . . . that the treble damages awarded in the Final Judgment for civil theft under Florida Statutes section 772.11 . . . Finally, the treble damages awarded in the Final Judgment for civil theft under Florida Statutes section 772.11 . . .

PARAMO D. M. P. a v. FLOYD, 154 So. 3d 477 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Under the civil theft statute, section 772.11, Florida Statutes (2011-12), the trial court tripled the . . .

PROU, v. GIARLA,, 62 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . . § 772.11(1), [a]ny person who proves by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she has been injured . . . Stat. § 772.11(1). . . . Stat. § 772.11(1). . . .

UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. v. SANCTUARY SURGICAL CENTRE, INC. LLC, LLC, LLC, PSG S. LLC, a k a, 5 F. Supp. 3d 1350 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . , anti-kickback statute, and insurance fraud statutes. (5) civil theft (Count 5), in violation of § 772.11 . . . Florida’s civil theft statute, § 772.11, Fla. . . . . § 772.11(3), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). . . .

SPENCE- JONES, v. RUNDLE,, 991 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (S.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 772.11, "[t]he defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney . . .

HELDENMUTH, v. GROLL, J. P. A. f k a P. A., 128 So. 3d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Arcoiries, Inc., 561 So.2d 344, 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), § 772.11, Fla. . . .

H. ALLEN HOLMES, INC. v. JIM MOLTER, INC., 127 So. 3d 695 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Under section 772.11(1), Florida Statutes (2011), the defendant (or counter-defendant) on a civil theft . . . claimant (or counter-claimant) “raised a claim that was without substantial fact or legal support.” § 772.11 . . .

RHODES, v. O. TURNER COMPANY, LLC,, 117 So. 3d 872 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Rhodes sent civil theft demand letters to Turner LLC, Othel Turner, and Rainer, pursuant to section 772.11 . . . $410,451.79, three times the amount taken from the IRA plus attorney’s fees and costs as provided by section 772.11 . . . Civil Theft Under section 772.11(1), Florida Statutes (2012), a person who is injured by a violation . . . Plaintiff and obtain her funds through an act of theft giving rise to a civil remedy pursuant to § 772.11 . . .

IN RE BARRETO, v., 514 B.R. 702 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . As a result, the Plaintiff made a written demand to the Defendant for damages under section 772.11, Florida . . .

In G. MOUTTET, EGE, v. G., 493 B.R. 640 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . See § 772.11, Fla. Stat. (1997); Country Manors Ass’n v. . . .

MERRITT v. OLMHP, LLC, a, 112 So. 3d 559 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See §§ 812.014, 772.11, Fla. Stat. (2004). . . .

DENT, v. STATE, 125 So. 3d 205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See § 772.11, Fla.Stat. (1989). . . .

STEVO DESIGN, INC. a v. SBR MARKETING LTD. a, 919 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Nev. 2013)

. . . . § 772.11. . . .

BURGER, a v. HARTLEY,, 896 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . fraud (damages) (Count III); conspiracy (Count IX); and civil theft in violation of Florida Statute § 772.11 . . . Civil Theft in Violation of Florida Statutes § 772.11 (Count X). . . . Stat. § 772.11. Motion for Summary Judgment at 16-18. . . . Florida Statutes § 772.11 provides that “[a]ny person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that . . . Stat. § 772.11(1). . . .

PRAIRIE BAND POTTAWATOMIE NATION, v. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, J., 684 F.3d 1002 (10th Cir. 2012)

. . . .” § 772.11(a). . . . See § 772.11. . . . predicted noise level [sic] through comparison between measured and predicted levels” as required. § 772.11 . . . regulations specifically exempt “developed lands that are not sensitive to highway traffic noise,” § 772.11 . . . For projects on existing alignments, predict existing and design year traffic noise impacts.” § 772.11 . . .

RUSSO, v. FINK, 87 So. 3d 815 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . The complaint set forth counts for conversion, civil theft pursuant to section 772.11, Florida Statutes . . . Turning to the count for civil theft, the applicable statute, section 772.11(1), Florida Statutes (2010 . . .

RESIDENTIAL SAVINGS MORTAGE, INC. a v. KEESLING a, 73 So. 3d 280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . page six, which sets out the claim of exploitation of the elderly by deception pursuant to sections 772.11 . . .

OGINSKY, v. PARAGON PROPERTIES OF COSTA RICA LLC, a, 784 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . . § 772.11(1). . . . Stat. § 772.11(1). . . .

ZAKI KULAIBEE ESTABLISHMENT, v. H. McFLICKER,, 788 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . . §§ 812.014 and 772.11, against all of the defendants, which occurred “through the theft of ZKE’s goods . . .

In LAS VEGAS CASINO LINES, LLC, LLC, v., 454 B.R. 223 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . Section 772.11 is not a standalone statutory provision. . . . Sections 812.014(1) and 772.11 were applied. GE Seaco Servs., Ltd. v. . . . Section 772.11 are incompatible with maritime law). . . . Section 772.11. Judgment is due to be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. . . . Sections 772.11 and 812.014(1). . . . .

CENTURY SENIOR SERVICES, a v. CONSUMER HEALTH BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC. a a LLC, a, 770 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . . § 772.11 (setting forth an unmet demand for the return of the property as a requirement for conversion . . . Stat. §§ 772.11, 812.014). . . .

DOMINGUEZ, Jr. v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY,, 416 F. App'x 884 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . MDFRD awarding it $21,705.00 on its state law counterclaims for civil theft and conversion under §§ 772.11 . . .

F. NODAL, M. D. v. INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE CO. f k a Co. v. Co. f k a Co., 50 So. 3d 721 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Infinity sued Nodal and PPIC, asserting, among others, causes of action based on civil theft, § 772.11 . . . Both Nodal and PPIC then filed motions for attorney’s fees under sections 627.428, 627.736, and 772.11 . . . But we reverse the court’s decision to deny section 772.11 fees and remand with directions to award Nodal . . . Section 772.11(1) provides that a defendant in a civil theft action “is entitled to recover reasonable . . . reverse the circuit court’s denial of Nodal’s and PPIC’s motions for fees and costs pursuant to section 772.11 . . .

BELLE GLADE CHEVROLET- CADILLAC BUICK PONTIAC OLDSMOBILE, INC. v. FIGGIE,, 54 So. 3d 991 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . The parties later agreed that plaintiff could not receive a trebled damages award under section 772.11 . . .

PRAIRIE BAND POTTAWATOMIE NATION v. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, 751 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (D. Kan. 2010)

. . . . §§ 772.5(g), 772.11(c), 772.13(c); 23 C.F.R. Part 772, Table 1. . . . noise abatement criteria (“NAC”) or when they substantially exceed existing noise levels. 23 C.F.R. § 772.11 . . . ., construction of noise barriers or acquisition of property to create a buffer zone). 23 C.F.R. §§ 772.11 . . . if noise levels approach or exceed the NAC, the agency must consider abatement measures. 23 C.F.R. § 772.11 . . .

SHARABY, v. KLV GEMS CO. INC., 45 So. 3d 560 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . On October 5, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, wherein it removed the section 772.11 civil . . . Statutes (proposal for settlement), section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (frivolous lawsuit), and section 772.11 . . . entitlement to those fees incurred directly and exclusively associated with his prevailing on the section 772.11 . . .

PUSHKO, L. L. C. a v. KLEBENER, U. S. A. U. S. A. a a, 399 F. App'x 490 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . the March 8, 2005 civil theft demand letter did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 772.11 . . . Stat. § 772.11 (2002) (providing for “a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained”). . . . Section 772.11 provides as follows: ... . . . Stat. § 772.11 (2002). . . . .

ROMAN v. ATLANTIC COAST CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., 44 So. 3d 222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . within the meaning of section 489.126 and sought treble damages for civil theft pursuant to section 772.11 . . .

In LORENZO, A. R US, LLC, v., 434 B.R. 695 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . Section 772.11. . . . Stat. § 772.11: Section 772.11 provides for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs where a . . . Plaintiffs’ Request: Section 772.11 provides for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and . . . Stat. § 772.11(1). . . . Section 772.11 is inapplicable to this proceeding and provides no statutory basis for an award of fees . . .

In J. RAGUCCI, M. v. J., 433 B.R. 889 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . complaint, Sidney asserted that Ragucci violated Florida’s Civil Theft Act, Florida Statute Section 772.11 . . . Florida Statute Section 772.11 states that civil theft must be proven by clear and convincing evidence . . .

SIERRA CLUB v. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, F., 715 F. Supp. 2d 721 (S.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . . § 772.11(c), which states, “If a noise impact is identified, the abatement measures listed in § 772.13 . . . necessary only where frequent human use occurs and a lowered noise level would be of benefit.” 23 C.F.R. § 772.11 . . .

In MAYHUGH,, 427 B.R. 549 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . . § 772.11. . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO. In No. In No. In No. In No. s In No. In No. In No. In No., 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010)

. . . Under the provisions of F.S. 772.11, plaintiff may recover, upon proper proof, three times the actual . . .

CAT CHARTER L. L. C. v. SCHURTENBERGER,, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . Practices Act (FDUTPA), fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty, seeking treble civil damages pursuant to § 772.11 . . .

J. McCORMACK, v. R. FLENS,, 27 So. 3d 179 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 772.11, Fla. Stat. (2006). Because Mr. . . .

H. WINTERS, v. MULHOLLAND, E., 33 So. 3d 54 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . The applicable civil theft statute, section 772.11, Florida Statutes (2001), provides, in pertinent part . . . Instead, section 772.11 also requires the plaintiff to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he . . . See § 772.11. . . .

KELLY, v. PALMER, REIFLER, ASSOCIATES, P. A., 681 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . The firm points out that § 772.11(1) requires a demand letter as a condition precedent to filing suit . . . It is true that § 772.11(1) requires written notice prior to initiating a civil theft recovery action . . . Stat. § 772.11. . . . The firm explains that the demand letters were sent pursuant to the procedure outlined in § 772.11(1) . . . [D.E. 165 at 19-20], Plaintiffs counter that the pre-suit notice requirement of § 772.11(1) does not . . .

ABU- GHAZALEH, v. CHAUL,, 36 So. 3d 691 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Abu-Ghazaleh, defendants motioned for attorney’s fees and costs under sections 57.041, 768.79, and 772.11 . . . non-named plaintiffs, Van Diepen and CSI, were “parties” within the meaning of sections 57.041, 768.79, and 772.11 . . . Abu-Ghazaleh must show that the civil theft suit “was without substantial fact or legal support.” § 772.11 . . . upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim that was without substantial fact or legal support.” § 772.11 . . . them Van Diepen and CSI, filed a civil theft claim that was without “substantial legal support.” § 772.11 . . .

DOMINGUEZ, Jr. v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY,, 669 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Section 772.11(1), Florida Statutes, provides that “[a]ny person who proves by clear and convincing evidence . . . injury under this section must make a written demand for treble damages prior to filing the claim. § 772.11 . . .

ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. v. PALTEROVICH,, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Stat. §§ 772.11, 812.014. . . . Stat. § 772.11 (DE # 1 at 95, ¶ 344). 2. Fla. . . . Stat. § 772.11). . . . Stat. § 772.11(1); Fla. Stat. § 772.104(1). . . . Stat. § 772.11(1).”). . . .

MOYNET, v. COURTOIS, 8 So. 3d 377 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . The claim was asserted pursuant to section 772.11, Florida Statutes (2001). . . .

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, v. MAZER,, 556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . . §§ 812.014 and 772.11, and conversion; Wesb-Hem and APM were charged with unjust enrichment; WesWHem . . . Stat. §§ 772.11 (providing civil remedy for theft or exploitation), 812.014(1) (criminal theft statute . . . Stat. §§ 772.11 (providing civil remedy for theft or exploitation), 812.019 (criminal dealing in stolen . . .

A. WAKEFIELD, v. CORDIS CORPORATION, a Co., 304 F. App'x 804 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 772.11 (defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial . . .

In M. PEREZ,, 400 B.R. 879 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 772.11. . Fed. R. . . .

G. DIAZ, v. ANDY,, 987 So. 2d 698 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . On July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the Defendant, stating that pursuant to section 772.11 . . . letter, dated July 1, 2002, did not state an accurate and substantiated value of damages pursuant to 772.11 . . . See § 772.11. . . . Section 772.11 provides in relevant part as follows: Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence . . . Although section 772.11 provides that prior to commencing a civil theft action, "the person claiming . . .

OCALA JOCKEY CLUB, LLC, L. v. ROGERS,, 981 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . We must determine whether an award of damages pursuant to section 772.11, Florida Statutes (2004), should . . . Count II appears to be similar to count I, but it does not seek treble damages under section 772.11. . . . have not been consistent in determining whether the primary purpose of damage awards under section 772.11 . . . it is the economic lure of treble damages that attracts litigants to seek recompense under section 772.11 . . . Although section 772.11 permits an award of fees and costs incurred at trial and on appeal, the party . . .

WARE v. UNITED STATES FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION In J. In E. In F. In, 255 F. App'x 838 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 772.11 (requiring adoption of reasonable and feasible mitigation measures). . . .

NEW LENOX INDUSTRIES, INC. a v. H. FENTON, LLC., 510 F. Supp. 2d 893 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . . § 772.11, does not apply to the allegations, in the Complaint. . . . A review of the history of the civil theft statute discloses that prior to its amendment in 1999, § 772.11 . . . The current version of § 772.11- — which is applicable to this case — now includes in the list of enumerated . . . Stat. § 772.11 (1988). . Id. . Fla. Stat. § 812.014(1)(a)-(b). . See, e.g. . . .

In BANKEST CAPITAL CORP. v., 361 B.R. 263 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2006)

. . . . § 772.11 she sought treble damages in the amount of $15 million. Id., ¶¶ 46-18. . . .

ALMEIDA, v. AMAZON. COM, INC., 456 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 772.11 (West 2006), and under Florida’s common law doctrine of invasion of privacy. . . . Stat. § 772.11, to which Amazon apparently did not respond. . . . Stat. § 772.11; and (3) the Florida common law invasion of privacy doctrine. . . . Stat. § 772.11; see Palmer v. . . . Stat. § 772.11; see Ciaramello v. . . .

In STATE STREET ASSOCIATES, L. P. In, 348 B.R. 627 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . which seeks recovery of monies allegedly owed by the UDC to the Debtors pursuant to Florida Statute, § 772.11 . . .

ALPHAMED PHARMACEUTICALS CORP. v. ARRIVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. SPINELLI CORPORATION,, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2006)

. . . . § 772.11 (providing that victim of theft may state a claim for “minimum damages in the amount of $200 . . .

BORDER COLLIE RESCUE, INC. B. v. M. RYAN,, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (M.D. Fla. 2006)

. . . operations, which were located in Florida at the time of the purported incident. b. civil theft Section 772.11 . . . Stat. § 772.11. . . .

OCEAN CLUB COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CURTIS,, 934 So. 2d 522 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . any issue relating to the recovery of attorney’s fees for conversion under the theft statute, see § 772.11 . . .

In STATE STREET ASSOCIATES, L. P. In, 342 B.R. 32 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . Court) seeks recovery of monies allegedly owed by the UDC to the Debtors pursuant to Florida Statute, § 772.11 . . . Florida Statute § 772.11 provides that ”[a]ny person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that . . .

STATE OF BELIZE, a a v. HOWTZER CORPORATION, a a a a a v. EMB, 144 F. App'x 849 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 772.11 (Count III), fraud (Count IV), money had and received (Count V), and fraudulent conveyance . . .

In HAMBLEY TE v., 329 B.R. 382 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . . § 772.11 (West 2005). . . . Stat. § 772.11 provides: Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he has been injured . . .

UNITED STATES v. F. BAILEY,, 419 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 772.11(1) (“Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured . . .

SUPERIOR GARLIC INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. E A PRODUCE CORPORATION,, 934 So. 2d 484 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Silfredo Trujillo and Nil-da Olmo, that included a treble. damage claim for civil theft pursuant to § 772.11 . . . noted in an earlier appeal of the fee award, it is unclear whether the fee award was made pursuant to § 772.11 . . .

CHRISTOPHER ADVERTISING GROUP, INC. v. R B HOLDING COMPANY, INC. a d b a, 883 So. 2d 867 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . .” § 772.11, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . The letter demanded payment of a treble damage sum of $3,069,000 under section 772.11, Florida Statutes . . .

M. ZWEIBACH, M. D. v. GORDIMER, C. P. A. CO. P. A., 884 So. 2d 244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Gordimer filed a motion with the trial court seeking attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 57.105 and 772.11 . . .

SENVILLE v. E. PETERS FHWA A., 327 F. Supp. 2d 335 (D. Vt. 2004)

. . . . § 772.11(a). . . .

OREGRUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. D. SHEIVE,, 873 So. 2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Usury, second transaction, under section 687.03; Count 5: Quiet Title; Count 6: Civil Theft, section 772.11 . . . See, section 772.11; Florida Desk, Inc. v. . . .

E A PRODUCE CORPORATION, v. SUPERIOR GARLIC INT L, INC., 864 So. 2d 449 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . of a trade secret count, Superior Garlic requested an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 772.11 . . . to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party on the civil theft of trade secret count, under section 772.11 . . . orders or judgment, it is unclear whether the trial court awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 772.11 . . .

In PSI INDUSTRIES, INC. R. PSI v., 306 B.R. 377 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 772.11 allows for the imposition of attorney’s fees and treble damages. . . .

UNITED STATES v. F. BAILEY,, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 772.11(1). . . . Stat. § 772.11(1). . . . Stat. § 772.11(1), defendants found civilly liable for theft are subject to an award of threefold the . . . Stat. § 772.11(1), it is axiomatic that this prong of the Supreme Court’s due process test weighs in . . . Stat. § 772.11(1). . . . .

K. BULLARD, v. CAPITAL ONE, F. S. B., 288 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (N.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . See §§ 772.11 & 812.014(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . . .

ESTATE OF G. CADDEN, a k a a k a G. a k a a k a v. H. SCHICKEDANZ, a k a H. a k a, 855 So. 2d 651 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Alternatively, Snyder argued that he was entitled to fees under section 772.11, Florida Statutes, the . . . apparent conflict between the two statutes, the appellate court said: The trial court found that section 772.11 . . . Although Snyder argues that section 772.11 controls because it is more specific than section 733.705, . . .

SHER v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. a f k a d b a s, 848 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . in favor of Countrywide and reserved jurisdiction to consider a motion for fees pursuant to section 772.11 . . . First Issue — Section 772.11 Fees The first issue on appeal is whether it was error to award fees pursuant . . . to section 772.11. . . . Section 772.11 provides that, in a suit for civil theft pursuant to sections 812.012-812.037, Florida . . . Consequently, it was error to award Countrywide fees on the basis of section 772.11. . . .

In L. RISER,, 289 B.R. 201 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . , $82.14 in late charges for the January, February, and March 1997 payments, an escrow shortage of $772.11 . . .

In CARIBBEAN K LINE, LTD. R. v. T., 288 B.R. 908 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . § 772.11. . . . Florida Statutes § 772.11, Civil Remedy for Theft, provides that: “Any person who proves by clear and . . . Stat. § 772.11. . . . Stat. § 772.11 as follows: “A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses ... the property . . .

In STATE STREET HOUSES, INC., 305 B.R. 726 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . HUD, but also interest, as well as treble damages under Florida’s Civil Theft Law, Florida Statutes § 772.11 . . .

HUFF GROVES TRUST T T Co. v. CAULKINS INDIANTOWN CITRUS CO. a a a, 829 So. 2d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . contract case, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Caul-kins for civil theft under sections 772.11 . . .

C. S. I. R. ENTERPRISES, INC. v. SEBRITE AGENCY, INC. a a a a, 214 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . The statute alleged in Count II of the Plaintiffs complaint is Florida’s civil theft statute, § 772.11 . . . Stat. § 772.11 or within 18 U.S.C.1962. . . . No where within § 772.11 or § 1962 is there language stating that a remedy should be available despite . . .

FLORIDA DESK, INC. v. MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., 817 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See § 772.11, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

SEA COAST FOODS, INC. a A. J. v. LU- MAR LOBSTER AND SHRIMP, INC., 260 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 772.11. . . .

In TAYLOR a k a V. v., 265 B.R. 294 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . The claim in Count II is based on Fla.Stat. 772.11. . . .

In NATURALLY BEAUTIFUL NAILS, INC. v. d b a s, 262 B.R. 131 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . . § 772.11 (civil theft statute of Florida) and sought monetary damages plus treble damages under the . . . entitled to summary judgment because of Bay Area’s failure to comply with the requirements of Fla.Stat. § 772.11 . . . issue which is the impact, if any, of the failure to comply with the notice requirements of Fla.Stat. § 772.11 . . .

In K. ATCHISON, v. K., 255 B.R. 790 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . sought attorney’s fees for pursuing the dischargeability proceeding in this court pursuant to Section 772.11 . . . In this case, the plaintiff asserts Section 772.11, Florida Statutes, as the basis for an award of attorney . . . the bankruptcy court does not qualify as a “trial or appellate court” within the meaning of Section 772.11 . . .

GERSH, v. COFMAN,, 769 So. 2d 407 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See § 772.11, Fla. Stat. (1997); Country Manors Ass’n v. . . .

ANTON, v. G. ANTON,, 763 So. 2d 404 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . As to the issue of treble damages, we hold that under section 772.11, Florida Statutes (1995), treble . . .