WILLIAM ALVAREZ AND BETHAIDA ALVAREZ
v.
MARK CANTOR
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 William and Bethaida Alvarez sought certiorari review of a trial court order granting respondent Mark Cantor's second amended motion to add a claim for punitive damages. The Florida appellate court denied the petition, finding the trial court complied with procedural requirements under Florida Statutes section 768.72(1) and that the respondent's evidentiary proffer was sufficient to support the punitive damages claim.
The court denied the petition for certiorari, concluding that the trial court complied with all procedural requirements of section 768.72(1) and that the respondent's evidentiary proffer was sufficient to support the punitive damages claim. The scope of certiorari review is limited to procedural compliance, not the sufficiency of the evidentiary proffer.
[1] In certiorari review of an order granting leave to add a punitive damages claim, appellate courts review only whether the trial court complied with the procedural require…
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 intelligenceMark Cantor filed a second amended motion for leave to add a claim for punitive damages against William and Bethaida Alvarez. Cantor proffered evidenc…
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 Claim For Punitive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge. Coffey Burlington, P.L., and Kendall Coffey, Jeffrey B. Crockett, David J. Zack, and Dorothy C. Kafka, for petitioners. do Campo & Thornton, P.A., and John Thornton, Orlando do Campo, Daniela Jaramillo, and Michael J. Rutledge; and Donet, McMillan & Trontz, P.A., and David A. Donet, Jr., for respondent. Before EMAS, HENDON, and GORDO, JJ.
HENDON, J.
William Alvarez and Bethaida Alvarez (collectively, “Petitioners”), seek certiorari review of the trial court’s order granting the second amended motion for leave to add a claim for punitive damages filed by Mark Cantor (“Respondent”). We deny the petition.
The record before this Court reflects that the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2021).
The Respondent proffered evidence in support of his claim for punitive damages against the Petitioners, and following a hearing, the trial court entered a thorough order finding that the Respondent’s proffer was sufficient to support the claim for punitive damages against the Petitioners, both individually and collectively. See 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 of an order granting a motion for leave to add a claim for punitive damages 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); see also E.R. Truck & Equip. Corp. v. Gomont, 300 So. 3d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs. v. Rodriguez, 299 So. 3d 477, 478-79 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari and, in doing so, conclude that the arguments raised by the Petitioners lack merit.
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)