Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
FF Cosmetics FL Inc. v. City of Miami Beach
Citations: 114 F. Supp. 3d 1257; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99631; 2015 WL 4275365Docket: CASE NO . 14-cv-22072-KING
Court: District Court, S.D. Florida; July 14, 2015; Federal District Court
The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to exclude the expert opinion and testimony of Dr. Bryan Fuller regarding the constitutionality of two Miami Beach ordinances that prohibit solicitation and the distribution of commercial handbills. The Plaintiffs, businesses within the City, claimed their salespersons were fined and threatened for soliciting customers, arguing that their commercial speech deserved constitutional protection as long as it was not misleading. The City aimed to challenge the truthfulness of the Plaintiffs’ claims about their products, which allegedly provide health benefits due to diamond dust. The City hired Dr. Fuller, a skin biochemist, to assess the validity of these claims, revealing that he opined the claims were false. The Plaintiffs contested Dr. Fuller’s qualifications, noting his lack of specific expertise in diamond powder efficacy in cosmetics despite his extensive experience in skin biology. The Court found that Dr. Fuller’s opinions were within the realm of his expertise, emphasizing that any lack of specialization affects the testimony's weight rather than its admissibility. The Plaintiffs also questioned Dr. Fuller’s methodology, particularly regarding the testing of potential 'nanodiamonds' in their products, which they argued were overlooked. However, the City countered that the products did not contain nanodiamonds, a claim the Plaintiffs failed to address adequately, leading the Court to interpret their silence as an admission. Consequently, the Court rejected the Plaintiffs' methodological challenges and noted that other criticisms regarding Dr. Fuller’s credibility and motives were more suitable for cross-examination. Dr. Fuller did not initially disclose required information in his expert report, specifically failing to provide a complete compensation statement for his study and testimony as mandated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)(vi). Although the City has since supplied some information, it remains incomplete. The Court finds the omissions harmless and will not exclude Dr. Fuller’s testimony at this time but retains the right to reassess the situation if the City fails to provide the full disclosure. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion to exclude Dr. Fuller’s expert opinion and testimony is denied without prejudice, allowing for future objections during trial or evidentiary hearings. Additionally, while Plaintiffs challenge Dr. Fuller’s methodologies and conclusions, particularly regarding the 500 Dalton Rule and microdermabrasion, the City defends the validity of his methods. The Court emphasizes that the focus of the Daubert inquiry should be on the principles and methodologies used, rather than the conclusions drawn.