UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL 

DISTRICT, D/B/A/ MEMORIAL 

HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,

on its own behalf and on behalf of other 

similarly situated healthcare facilities,

Plaintiff,

ELAP SERVICES, LLC and GROUP & 

PENSION ADMINISTRATORS, INC., 

Defendants.

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Case No. 0:20-cv-61007-AHS

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL 

AUTHORITY

Irene Oria

FL Bar No. 484570 

FisherBroyles, LLP

199 E. Flagler St. #550 

Miami, FL 33131 

T: (786) 536-2838 

F: (786) 536-2838 

irene.oria@fisherbroyles.com

Irene Bassel Frick, Esq.

FL Bar No. 0158739 

Akerman LLP

401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 1700 

Tampa, FL 33602-5250 

T: (813) 223-7333 

F: (813) 223-2837 

irene.basselfrick@akerman.com

Kristopher R. Alderman (pro hac vice) 

GA Bar No. 179645 

The Summerville Firm, LLC

1126 Ponce de Leon Avenue 

Atlanta, GA 30306 

T: (770) 635-0030 

F: (770) 635-0029 

kris@summervillefirm.com

Patrick M. Emery (pro hac vice) 

GA Bar No. 821303 

Lavender Hoffman LLC 

945 East Paces Ferry Rd., Suite 2000 

Atlanta, GA 30326 

T: (404) 793-0652 

F: (404) 400-4500 

patrick.emery@lhalawyers.com

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 181 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2023 Page 1 of 4
- 1 -

Tereshakovec v. Ford Motor Co. (Doc. 180-1) is distinguishable and wrong insofar as it 

suggests reliance is never required under FDUTPA. The dissent eviscerates the conclusion that 

FDUTPA never requires reliance by showing how state and federal courts incorrectly borrowed 

from the FTC Act to effectively excuse causation in private FDUTPA actions. Doc. 180-1 at 77–

91. Ford may petition for en banc consideration, certiorari, or both.

Memorial must prove reliance to show causation here, but reliance is not always required. 

The plaintiff in Tershakovec could sail under the same fraud-on-the-market theory endorsed by 

Carriuolo, recognizing that a misrepresentation of automobile safety ratings influenced the 

market, inflating the price of the car, causing damages to consumers regardless of whether they 

individually relied on the ratings. Carriuolo v. GM Co., 823 F.3d 977, 987 (11th Cir. 2016). 

Similarly, in Tereshakovec, false statements about the Shelby GT’s performance capabilities 

could have inflated the market value causing damages without individual reliance. But that 

fraud-on-the-market theory does not work here because Defendants never sold Memorial or any 

other putative class member anything. Tereshakovec relies on a damages theory that Memorial 

cannot, and the dissent properly criticizes the overly broad language concerning reliance loosely 

repeated by the majority opinion and relied on here by Memorial.

In re: Fieldturf (Doc. 180-2) is a district court opinion that certified two issue classes

after having previously determined those classes met the Rule 23(a) requirements and satisfied 

predominance. The Rule 23(a) conclusions were not re-examined in the court’s recent opinion, 

and the predominance issue was only marginally evaluated. Doc. 180-2 at 11–13. Fieldturf offers 

no support for Memorial’s arguments that its proposed issue class is subject to generalized classwide proof. Fieldturf involved issues classes narrowly tailored to specific proof:

1. whether all Duraspine fields sold by FieldTurf to the class share a common inherent 

defect (“Defect Issue”); and

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 181 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2023 Page 2 of 4
- 2 -

2. whether FieldTurf knowingly omitted facts of this common defect from the proposed 

class in its marketing and sales presentations (“Deception Issue”).

Doc. 180-2 at 2–3. Conversely, Memorial’s issue class does not:

On the issue of whether ELAP and GPA unjustly retained benefits realized due to their 

application of RBP . . . .

Doc. 142 at 11. There is nothing narrow, discrete, or workable about Memorial’s issue class. 

Fieldturf shows how an issue class could be constructed to resolve common questions.

Memorial’s proposed class does not pass muster.

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of July, 2023.

Irene Oria

FL Bar No. 484570

FisherBroyles, LLP

199 E. Flagler St., #550

Miami, Florida 33131

T: (305) 536-2838

F: (305) 536-2838

irene.oria@fisherbroyles.com

Irene Bassel Frick, Esq.

FL Bar No. 0158739

Akerman LLP

401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 1700

Tampa, FL 33602-5250

T: (813) 223-7333

F: (813) 223-2837

irene.basselfrick@akerman.com

Kristopher R. Alderman (pro hac vice)

GA Bar No. 179645

The Summerville Firm, LLC

1126 Ponce de Leon Avenue

Atlanta, GA 30306

T: (770) 635-0030

F: (770) 635-0029

kris@summervillefirm.com

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 181 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2023 Page 3 of 4
- 3 - 

Patrick M. Emery (pro hac vice) 

GA Bar No. 821303 

Lavender Hoffman LLC

945 East Paces Ferry Rd., Suite 2000 

Atlanta, GA 30326 

T: (404) 793-0652 

F: (404) 400-4500 

patrick.emery@lhalawyers.com 

Counsel for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on July 25, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel 

of record.

/s/ Irene Bassel Frick__________

Irene Bassel Frick 

Counsel for Defendants

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 181 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2023 Page 4 of 4