JORGE D. ORTEGA, PETITIONER,
v.
MARIA SILVA AND LOUIS SILVA, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for certiorari seeking review of an order allowing a claim for punitive damages. The court clarified that certiorari jurisdiction extends only to reviewing whether a trial judge followed procedural requirements under section 768.72, not to reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting punitive damages when procedures were properly followed.
Certiorari jurisdiction is limited to reviewing whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but does not extend to reviewing the sufficiency of evidence when proper procedures have been followed. Certiorari is not available to challenge a determination that there is a reasonable showing of evidence providing a reasonable basis for punitive damages recovery.
[1] Appellate courts have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72.
[2] Appellate courts do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review a decision of a trial judge granting leave to amend a complaint to include a claim for punitive damages whe…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“appellate courts do have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review a decision of a trial judge granting leave to amend a complaint to include a claim for punitive damages when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72”
Establishes the scope of certiorari jurisdiction for punitive damages claims—limited to procedural compliance, not evidentiary sufficiency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Jorge Ortega sought certiorari review of an order by the trial court allowing respondents Maria and Louis Silva to assert a claim for punit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Writ Of Common Law Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
We dismiss this petition for a writ of common law certiorari to review an order allowing a claim for punitive damages. See Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Petitioner is mistaken in reading our decision in Nova Southeastern University v. McCollough, 693 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), to allow certiorari jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence to allow a claim for punitive damages. In Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1995), the court held:
“We conclude that appellate courts do have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review a decision of a trial judge granting leave to amend a complaint to include a claim for punitive damages when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72. Certiorari is not available to review a determination that there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” [emphasis supplied]
658 So. 2d at 519. As the court later explained in Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1996):
“certiorari jurisdiction is appropriate to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 but not so broad as to encompass review of the sufficiency of the evidence when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72.”
671 So. 2d at 160; see also Eugene J. Strasser, M.D., P.A. v. Bose Yalamanchi, M.D., P.A., 677 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (certiorari lies to review failure of trial court to determine basis for punitive damages).
In Nova Southeastern we granted the petition as to Nova University only because the underlying respondeat superior claim against Nova did not allege any independent fault on its part. Without independent fault, there was no basis on which to expose the defendant to punitive damages. Given the absence of such a basis, no evidence could ever have been adduced for punitive damages. In short we reviewed the procedure followed by the trial court in allowing the assertion of the claim for punitive damages, not the sufficiency of the evidence to support a properly alleged claim. Allowing a claimant to seek punitive damages as part of a claim in which such exemplary damages are unavailable as a matter of law, is tantamount to allowing them without determining whether there is an evidentiary basis for them. No such problem has been shown here.
DISMISSED.
GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Keith Robinson Oken, M.D., 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011)…smissed the petition, explaining that “certiorari was unavailable to review the sufficiency of the evidence to allow a claim for punitive damages under section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2000).” St. Mary’s, 785 So. 2d at 1262 (citing Ortega v. Silva, 712 So. 2d 1148, 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). In so holding, the Fourth District reasoned that “certiorari does not lie for appellate courts to reweigh the evidence presented concerning compliance with the presuit statutory requirements.” Id. Both Williams and Dr. O…
-
ST. Mary's Hosp. v. Bell, 785 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…osp. v. Hill, 721 So. 2d 404, 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). However, certiorari does not lie for appellate courts to reweigh the evidence presented concerning compliance with the presuit statutory requirements. This case is analogous to Ortega v. Silva, 712 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). There we ruled that certiorari was unavailable to review the sufficiency of the evidence to allow a claim for punitive damages under section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2000). Id. at 1149. We cited to Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.…
-
Munroe Reg'l Health Sys., Inc. v. The Est. OF Gustl J. Gonzales, 795 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes, in allowing a punitive damages claim; the court does not have certiorari jurisdiction to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to allow a punitive claim. Ortega v. Silva, 712 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1995). Compare Stephanos v. Paine, 727 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (trial court departed from essential requirements of law by failing to dismiss amended complaint cl…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- The Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGUIRE, 670 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Simeon, Inc. v. COX, 671 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1996)
- Emmett Black v. State, 677 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Nova Se. Univ., Inc. v. McCOLLOUGH, 693 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)