RANDOLPH SAPP
v.
MONICA OLIVARES

Fla. 4th DCA | 2020-01-08
No. 19-2190
Nora Beth Dorsey
288 So. 3d 714 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2020) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

Publix Supermarkets and Raymond Sapp sought certiorari review of a trial court order granting plaintiff's motion to amend a wrongful death complaint to include punitive damages. The court dismissed the petition, holding that while appellate courts may review whether procedural requirements of section 768.72 were followed, they lack certiorari jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of evidence supporting the punitive damages claim.


Holding

Certiorari jurisdiction does not extend to reviewing the sufficiency of evidence or the trial court's reasonableness determination regarding punitive damages amendments when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72. Appellate courts may only review whether procedural requirements were met, not the substantive evidentiary determination.


Headnotes

[1] Under Florida Statute § 768.72(1), appellate courts lack certiorari jurisdiction to review a trial court's determination that sufficient evidence provides a reasonable ba…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Key Quotes

“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.”

From Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995), establishing the scope of appellate jurisdiction over punitive damages amendments

Facts & Procedural History

A trial court granted plaintiff's motion to amend a wrongful death cause of action to seek punitive damages. Petitioners Publix Supermarkets and Raymo…

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.


Opinion of the Court

Alberto Olivares.

PER CURIAM. Petitioners, Publix Supermarkets and Raymond Sapp, both seek certiorari review of an order granting plaintiff’s motion to amend to seek punitive damages in this wrongful death cause of action. Section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2018), allows for the amendment of a civil action to state a claim for punitive damages when “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.” Petitioners contend that the evidence presented was insufficient to make a “reasonable showing by evidence” that punitive damages may be recovered and that the court failed to explain how its limited findings were sufficient to justify a claim for punitive damages.

In Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995), our supreme court held 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. In this case, we conclude that the procedural requirements of the statute were followed. See Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559, 561-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (requiring three procedural steps: attachment of the proposed amended complaint to the motion to amend; service of the proffer or other evidence to support the punitive damage claim; and an affirmative finding by the trial court that the plaintiff made a reasonable showing by evidence to support a punitive damage claim). As we are bound by Globe, we cannot review the petitioners’ claims addressing the sufficiency of the evidence or the reasonableness of the trial court’s determination.1 1 We do note that several appellate courts and individual judges have questioned the continued efficacy of Globe in modern litigation and suggested an amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 to permit non-final appeals of orders on motions to amend to add a punitive damage claim. See Event Depot Corp., The petitions are therefore dismissed. WARNER, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

269 So. 3d at 563-65 (Kuntz, J., concurring specially); Osechas v. Arcila, 271 So. 3d 65, 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (Scales, J., specially concurring); Levin v. Pritchard, 258 So. 3d 545, 548 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); TRG Desert Inn Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky, 194 So. 3d 516, 520 n.5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …-42, 2020 WL 1281021, at *1-2 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 18, 2020) (Scales, J., concurring and Gordo, J., concurring specially); Levin v. Pritchard, 258 So. 3d 545, 548 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); TRG Desert Inn, 194 So. 3d at 520 n.5; see also Sapp v. Olivares, 288 So. 3d 714, 716 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (noting that - 7 - "several appellate courts and individual judges have questioned the continued efficacy of Globe in modern litigation"). "[T]he granting of a motion for leave to amend a complaint to add a punitive da…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw