NORMAN A. SVOBODA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
BAYER CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Svoboda appealed a products liability judgment in favor of Bayer and Eckerds, claiming evidentiary errors. The court affirmed the judgment on appeal but reversed on Bayer's cross-appeal regarding the timeliness of a motion to tax costs, finding the trial court erred in applying the wrong deadline.
The trial court erred in applying the thirty-day deadline from the jury's verdict rather than from the filing of the final judgment. Bayer's motion for enlargement of time was timely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b) because it was served within thirty days after the final judgment was filed.
[1] A trial court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed for prejudicial error.
[2] A motion to tax costs must be served no later than thirty days after the filing of the judgment.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 provides that "[a]ny party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorney's fees, or both shall serve a motion no later than thirty days after filing of the judgment...."”
Establishes the controlling rule for the deadline to file motions to tax costs, which runs from filing of judgment, not verdict
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSvoboda brought a products liability action against Bayer Corporation and Eckerds Corporation of Florida. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.090(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Norman A. Svoboda appeals from a final judgment in favor of Bayer Corporation and Eekerd Corporation of Florida following a products liability trial. Mr. Svoboda argues for reversal, claiming that several evidentiary rulings made by the trial court constituted prejudicial error. Having examined each of the claimed errors carefully, we disagree and affirm without further discussion.
On cross-appeal, Bayer argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding that the time for filing its motion to tax costs expired thirty days after the jury’s verdict, rather than thirty days after the judgment was filed. We agree. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 provides that “[a]ny party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorney’s fees, or both shall serve a motion no later than thirty days after filing of the judgment ....” (Emphasis added). Bayer filed a motion for en largement of time to file a motion to tax costs less than thirty days after the final judgment was filed. As such, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b) controls. In pertinent part, that rule provides:
(b) Enlargement. When an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time by order of court, by these rules, or by notice given thereunder, for cause shown, the court at any time in its discretion (1) with or without notice, may order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made and notice after the expiration of the specific period, may permit the act to be done when failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. ...
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b).
Bayer’s motion for an extension of time to file its motion to tax costs was timely, as it was served within thirty days after the final judgment was filed. Consequently, the trial judge erred in concluding that Bayer’s motion was untimely. On remand, the trial judge should grant Bayer’s motion if good cause is shown as required by rule 1.090(b).1
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . Contrary to Mr. Svoboda's assertion, excusable neglect is not an issue for the trial court’s consideration of Bayer’s timely motion. Excusable neglect would be relevant only if Bayer’s motion had been untimely. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b).