Himes v. Brown & Co. Securities Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the trial court could justifiably find that the plaintiff did not suffer any actual damages proximately caused by the defendant’s alleged violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
• finding no recovery under FDUTPA for misleading and false advertisement where plaintiff sustained no out-of-pocket losses
• dismissing various causes of action because plaintiff could not show that damages were proximately caused by defendant’s actions
• legislature left enforcement of FDUTPA \in the hands of state agencies in cases where the victims have not suffered actual damages\
• actual damages must be alleged to state cause of action for misleading advertising and deceptive and unfair trade practices even where advertisement false as a matter of law
• “There can be no monetary recovery under the FDUTPA where the plaintiff has suffered no out-of-pocket 3 In the SACC, The Orchards incorporated the factual allegations and support in its Answer to CMR’s operative complaint. (Doc. #32.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).