STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC; BRIAN STOCK; ROBERT IMIG; LELY RESORT REALTY, LLC; STOCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC; STK MORTGAGE, LLC; AND STOCK FINANCIAL, LLC, PETITIONERS,
v.
JOSEPH ULRICH, RESPONDENT
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 appellate court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari, upholding the lower court's decision to allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The appellate court's review was limited to procedural compliance, not the sufficiency of the evidence.
No, the circuit court did not err. The appellate court found that the circuit court adhered to the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes, which is the extent of the appellate court's review on a petition for writ of certiorari.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari to review an order permitting amendment of a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages is limited to determining whether the circuit…
[2] A court must conduct the evidentiary inquiry required by section 768.72, Florida Statutes, before permitting a claim for punitive damages to be added to a complaint.
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“Under our limited scope of review, we deny the petition.”
States the court's decision on the petition for certiorari.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued for damages after allegedly being made a scapegoat for the intentional destruction of a bald eagle's nest. The plaintiff sought to …
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 Procedural Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
In seeking a writ of certiorari, the Petitioners, Defendants in the circuit court, ask us to reverse the circuit court’s interlocutory order permitting the Plaintiff/Respondent, Joseph Ulrich, to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages against them. Under our limited scope of review, we deny the petition.
Mr. Ulrich initiated this suit for damages claiming that he had been made the scapegoat for the intentional destruction of an active bald eagle’s nest in a residential development his employer was building. The circuit court had before it numerous affidavits, depositions, a federal trial transcript, and other evidence when it allowed Mr. Ulrich to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. Before the court granted the motion to amend, the Petitioners were allowed ample opportunity to respond and present evidence in opposition, including a hearing on the motion. The applicable legal standard for our review by certiorari is “to determine whether a court has conducted the evidentiary inquiry required by section 768.72, Florida Statutes, but not so broad as to encompass review of the sufficiency of the evidence considered in that inquiry.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla.1995). The record before us demonstrates that the circuit court comported with the procedural requirements section 768.72 demands. Accordingly, we must deny relief. See Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Meeks, 778 So.2d 322, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that the scope of review on a petition for writ of certiorari to review the granting of a motion to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages is limited to determining whether the circuit court adhered to the procedural requirements of section 768.72). We are thus unable to address the Petitioners’ contentions relative to the substantive merits of Mr. Ulrich’s evidence, including that one corporate defendant was not in existence at the time the alleged tort took place.
Petition denied.
WHATLEY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deaterly v. Jacobson, 313 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…a review of the sufficiency of the evidence considered by the trial court. Id. at 520. When a trial court has complied with procedural requirements of the statute, certiorari should - 4 - not be granted. Id.; see also Stock Dev., LLC v. Ulrich, 7 So. 3d 582, 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Meeks, 778 So. 2d 322, 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). When a plaintiff files a motion for leave to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages in a civil action, the trial court mus…
-
Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. THE Est. of Bill Croft, SR., 299 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…135-36 (Fla. 2011) (citing Globe, 658 So. 2d at 519- 20). It is thus well-settled that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the sufficiency of or "substantive merits" of the evidence in this certiorari proceeding. See Stock Dev., LLC v. Ulrich, 7 So. 3d 582, 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559, 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); see also Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 263 So. 3d 133, 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ("[W]e do not have jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evid…
Authorities Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Rugenia A. Meeks, 778 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)