Stewart Agency, Inc. d/b/a Earl Stewart Toyota of North Palm Beach v. Arrigo Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Arrigo Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram West Palm Beach, and Arrigo Ft. Pierce, LLC d/b/a Arrigo Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram Fiat Ft. Pierce

Summary

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Arrigo Enterprises and Arrigo Ft. Pierce in a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act action brought by Stewart Agency. The court held that Stewart presented no evidence that Arrigo engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice injuring a consumer or that Arrigo’s conduct caused Stewart’s alleged damages. The court also concluded that Stewart was not sufficiently aggrieved to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff seeking actual damages under FDUTPA must establish an unfair or deceptive act or practice, causation, and actual damages. Because Stewart admitted that Arrigo did not cause Stewart's decision to stop selling unrepaired vehicles and produced no evidence of a specific deceptive transaction, summary judgment on the actual-damages claim was proper.
2. Stewart failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that Arrigo committed an unfair or deceptive trade practice that injured a consumer.
3. An entity seeking declaratory or injunctive relief under FDUTPA section 501.211(1) must show that it is aggrieved because its rights have been, are being, or will be adversely affected by a FDUTPA violation, meaning an unfair or deceptive practice injurious to consumers. Stewart failed to satisfy those requirements.
4. Summary judgment is proper when the movant's competent evidence negates a material element and the nonmovant fails to present counterevidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on Stewart's FDUTPA claim for actual damages where Stewart presented no evidence that Arrigo's conduct caused its alleged losses.
2. Whether Stewart, a competing business, was entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief under FDUTPA section 501.211(1) without evidence that it was adversely affected by a consumer-injuring unfair or deceptive practice by Arrigo.
3. Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding an unfair or deceptive trade practice by Arrigo.

Disposition

affirmed