Holmes v. City of Palm Bay, 249 So. 3d 760 (2018)

June 15, 2018 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District · Case No. 5D16–2993

249 So. 3d 760

Brenda J. HOLMES, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PALM BAY and Gatso USA, Inc., Appellees.

Case No. 5D16-2993

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 15, 2018

David M. Kerner and Jason D. Weisser, of Schuler, Halvorson, Weisser, Zoeller & Overbeck, P.A., and Andrew A. Harris, of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

Robert Alden Swift, Christina Bredahl Gierke and Christine A. Wasula, of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee Gatso USA, Inc.

Erin J. O'Leary and Scott Danahy, of Garganese, Weiss & D'Agresta, P.A., Orlando, and Andrew P. Lannon, Patricia D. Smith, Peter J. Sweeney, Jr., Jill E. Jacobs, and Wendy L. Fisher, of Office of the City Attorney City of Palm Bay, Palm Bay, for Appellee City of Palm Bay.

PER CURIAM.

Brenda Holmes appeals a non-final order denying her motion to certify the class. We affirm the trial court's order determining that Holmes failed to establish the typicality and predominance elements required under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a) and 1.220(b)(3), respectively. See Easter v. City of Orlando , 249 So.3d 723, 2018 WL 2746467 (Fla. 5th DCA June 8, 2018). We further conclude that there was no error in the trial court's determination that Holmes failed to establish that she would be an adequate class representative.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.