MOSS & ASSOCIATES, LLC, ETC.
v.
CORY LAPIN
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.
Petitioners seek certiorari review of a trial court order granting respondent Cory Lapin's motion to add a punitive damages claim under Florida Statute 768.72. The Third District Court of Appeal reviews whether the trial court complied with procedural requirements for punitive damages claims and denies the petition.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. The trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, and the respondent's evidentiary proffer was sufficient to support the punitive damages claim.
[1] Certiorari review of an order granting leave to amend a complaint to add a punitive damages claim under section 768.72 is limited to whether the trial court complied with…
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 intelligenceCory Lapin filed a second amended motion for leave to file an amended complaint adding a claim for punitive damages against Moss & Associates, LLC, Sa…
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 Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed October 27, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-1653 Lower Tribunal No. 20-11446 ________________ Moss & Associates, LLC, etc., et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
Cory Lapin,
Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Lopez, Judge. Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial, LLC, and Steven D. Gonzalez and Jose O. De La Cruz, for petitioners. Shaked Law Firm, P.A., and Sagi Shaked and Cory D. Lapin, for respondent. Before HENDON, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ. HENDON, J.
Moss & Associates, LLC, Safety Guys, LLC, and Downtown Development Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Petitioners”), seek certiorari review of the trial court’s order granting Cory Lapin’s (“Respondent”) second amended motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add a claim for punitive damages pursuant to section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2021). We deny the petition.
The record before this Court reflects that the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72. The Respondent proffered evidence in support of his claim for punitive damages, and following a hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that the Respondent’s proffer was sufficient to support the claim. See E.R. Truck & Equip. Corp. v. Gomont, 300 So. 3d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); see also Event
Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559, 561-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (recognizing that the scope of an appellate court’s certiorari review is limited to whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but certiorari review is not available to review the sufficiency of the respondent’s evidentiary proffer). We therefore deny the petition for writ of certiorari.1 1 The Petitioners also sought to quash the portion of the order under review referencing Downtown Development Holdings because the Respondent’s second amended motion to add a claim for punitive damages did not Petition denied.
advance any argument as to Downtown Development Holdings. This point is well taken but is now moot because the trial court has since entered an agreed order removing Downtown Development Holdings from the order under review. The final argument raised by the Petitioners is also now moot.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomson v. Calhoun, 32 Fla. Supp. 21 (Dade Cty. Small Cl. Ct. 1969)…ury v. Sibley, 183 Mass. 105, 66 N.E. 603; Gazlay v. Riegel, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 501; Overton v. Tyler, 3 Pa. St. 347, 45 Am. Dec. 645; Davis v. Brady, 17 S. D. 511, 97 N.W. 719; Story v. Lamb, 52 Mich. 525, 18 N.W. 248; [*24] Waterhouse v. Chouinard, 128 Me. 505, 149 A. 21; Williston, Neg. Inst. (1931) p. 37. Accordingly, it is the court’s finding and determination that for interest due on principal on February 12, 1967, defendant was legally entitled to charge and receive $400, at the rate of 8%; $400 for…
Authorities Cited
- The Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
- E.R. Truck & Equip. Corp. v. Gomont, 300 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)