STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
VICKI BRAVENDER, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.280(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
State Farm appeals an order assessing $300 attorney’s fees against it as a result of State Farm’s discovery misconduct. State Farm asserts that the order is appealable as an order of civil contempt; however, it is not. The fees were assessed for services rendered in regard to a motion for protective order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c). That rule provides that expenses may be awarded by the court in relation to a motion for a protective order pursuant to rule 1.380(a)(4). This was not, therefore, an order of contempt, but rather an order entered pursuant to those two rules.
Nor is the order appealable as a final judgment, because it merely “awards plaintiffs counsel $300 in sanctions for the necessity of coming to court on this motion.” It is not in the form of a money judgment on which the clerk would issue execution.
Although we can only speculate as to why State Farm would have gone to the expense of appealing this order at this time, one reason could be that it was not sure if it was a final order which had to be appealed. This opinion will lay that concern to rest. We agree with the first district that this type of sanction order is not appealable or reviewable by certiorari. See Malone v. Costin, 410 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Appeal dismissed.
GLICKSTEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
IDS Long Distance, Inc. v. Heiffer, 837 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…covery abuse issue. As to the remaining matters raised in the petition concerning the imposition of attorney’s fees and other sanctions, we find that they are not subject to certiorari review. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bravender, 700 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that order assessing $300 in attorney’s fees for discovery misconduct is not reviewable by certiorari). We note that the trial judge has very broad discretion to fashion sanctions for the type of discovery abuse that app…
-
Meide v. Gibson, 855 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…d the appellant’s response to this Court’s September 9, 2003 order, this appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See IDS Long Distance, Inc. v. Heiffer, 837 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bravender, 700 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Malone v. Costin, 410 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). KAHN, WEBSTER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Malone v. Costin, 410 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)