Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...See Fla. Stat. § 95.11 (2)(b). 2. breach of fiduciary duty: four years. See Fla.Stat. § 95.1 l(3)(p). 3. negligence: four years. See Fla.Stat. § 95.11(3)(a). 4. fraud: four years. See Fla.Stat. § 95.-11(3)©. 5. CRCPA: five years. See Fla.Stat. § 772.17....

...2d DCA 1987); Epperson v. Dixie Ins. Co., 461 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review denied, 471 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1985). Unless it appears on the record that the statute was not complied with and that the five year statute of limitations established by section 772.17, Florida Statutes (1989) had expired so that Seymour would be unable to comply with the requirements of the statute, summary judgment is inappropriate on this basis....

...e line of credit. (Niquette Dep. at 28-29). Niquette testified that Bookworld did not use PBM collections to pay operating expenses. (Niquette Dep. at 28). [10] Bookworld argues that PBM failed to comply with the demand requirements under Fla. Stat. § 772.17....

...on to dismiss. Therefore, defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's fraud and constructive trust claims on grounds of time bar is denied. 2. Count II—Civil Theft Civil theft claims are governed by the statute of limitation found in Florida Statutes § 772.17 (1989), which provides: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action or proceeding under this chapter may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the conduct in violation of a provision of this act terminates or the cause of action accrues." Fla.Stat. § 772.17 (1989)....

...statute. Security Trust Co. v. Black River National Bank, 187 U.S. 211, 23 S.Ct. 52, 47 L.Ed. 147 (1902). Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges liability on the part of the defendants pursuant to Chapter 772 of the Florida Statutes. According to section 772.17 of the Florida Statutes, the applicable limitations period for an action founded on a violation of Chapter 772 is five (5) years after the conduct which violates a provision of the act terminates or the cause of action accrues....

...l conduct. Id. at 13. The statute of limitations for federal RICO claims is four years. Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 553 , 120 S.Ct. 1075 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1047 (2000). The equivalent Florida act provides a five year statute of limitations. Fla. Stat. § 772.17 ....

...Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co., 450 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (finding retroactive application of statute proper where statute incorporated previously criminal conduct). Retroactive application of the statute does not save the action against Elizabeth Keeley and Francise Strother. Under section 772.17 [3] the plaintiff has five years to file suit....

...However, the state filed criminal charges against Elizabeth Strother in 1979 based on the same acts as were alleged in the civil complaint. The five year statute of limitations was therefore tolled during the prosecution and for two years thereafter, just as it would have been under the RICO predecessor provision. See § 772.17, Fla....

...xecutives. The federal district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that Florida’s five-year statute of limitations on a Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act claim and the four-year statute of limitations on all other claims had run. See § 772.17, Fla....

...Civil Theft Iglesias seeks summary judgment on the claim for civil theft on the basis that this claim is barred by the statute of limitations while Korman seeks summary judgment that this claim is not so barred. Civil theft claims are governed by the statute of limitations contained in § 772.17 which provides that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action or proceeding under this chapter may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the conduct in violation of a provision of this act terminates or the cause of action accrues. Fla.Stat. § 772.17 (1991)....

...To adopt this reasoning would be to hold that as long as royalties accrue, such as twenty years from now in the event the song is being played, sold, etc., that suit could be brought. Such a result cannot be the intent of the legislature in enacting § 772.17....

...802 (M.D.Fla.1987) the plaintiffs claimed civil theft for the defendants knowingly obtaining of the plaintiff's monthly payments for their investment contracts. In determining whether the defendants had committed civil theft, the court construed § 812.035(10), Florida Statutes (1985), a predecessor to § 772.17, which provided a five year limitations period after the cause of action accrued....

...the plaintiff's claim arose, and the limitations period commenced, when the injury first occurred—when the plaintiffs made the first payments to the defendants or contracted to do so. Id. The fact that Armbrister construed a predecessor statute to § 772.17 is inconsequential as the language of § 772.17 mirrors that of § 812.035(10) as both provide that suit must be commenced within five years after the cause of action accrues while § 772.17 provides an alternative time for the statute to run—when the conduct terminates....

...The injury in this cause occurred when Korman first became entitled to royalties and they were not received. According to Korman, this time period would have been in at least 1980 or 1981 at which time they were overdue. Korman argues that the "discovery rule" applies to § 772.17 so that the limitations period does not run until she knew or should have known of the civil theft. Without deciding whether the discovery rule applies to § 772.17, see Jones v. Childers, 1992 WL 300845 (M.D.Fla. June 26, 1992) (stating discovery rule may apply to § 772.17), this Court concludes that Korman was on notice, or should have reasonably been on notice, of the possible invasion of her legal rights prior to 1985....

...al Mgmt. v. Carr, No. 2:15-CV-14191-ROSENBERG/LYNCH, 2015 WL 6865750 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2015) (Rosenberg, J.) (“Florida law[] provides that ordinary claims of negligence are subject to a four-year statute of limitations... ”) (footnote omitted); § 772.17, Fla....

...2d DCA 1987); Epperson v. Dixie Ins. Co., 461 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review denied 471 So.2d 43 (Fla.1985). The Court in Seymour held that unless it appears on the record that the Statute was not complied with and the five year Statute of Limitation established by § 772.17 had expired so the Plaintiff no longer complied with the requirement of the Statute the summary judgment by the defendant was inappropriate on this ground....

...Stat. § 95.11(3)(a), (j), (p) (prescribing four years for actions “founded on negligence,” actions “founded on fraud,” and any actions “not specifically provided for in these statutes”). The statute of limitations for Plaintiffs’ civil RICO claim is five years. See id. § 772.17. In accordance with the general accrual rule, Plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent supervision accrued when they suffered damages....

...tions to perpetuate concealment of the altered practices. We find no error in the trial court’s granting of summary judgment on the civil theft action in favor of VNA and BNP, where the claims were barred by the five-year statute of limitations of section 772.17....

...The statute of limitations applicable to civil theft provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action or proceeding under this chapter may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the conduct in violation of a provision of this act terminates or the cause of action accrues. § 772.17, Fla....

...4 We note that the victim is free to pursue a claim for civil theft in the appropriate forum, assuming she can do so prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. See § 772.11, Fla. Stat. (2019) (providing for a civil remedy for victims of theft or robbery); § 772.17 (establishing statute of limitations for civil remedies based on criminal acts). 4