KARISMA HOTELS & RESORTS CORPORATION LTD.
v.
DAVID HOFFMAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LISA HOFFMAN
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.
A corporate officer sought a protective order to avoid deposition under the apex doctrine, as established by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(h). The court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, holding that the officer's affidavit constituted an impermissible bald assertion of ignorance that failed to meet the rule's requirements.
The court held that the officer's affidavit was insufficient as it constituted a bald assertion of ignorance disapproved by the Florida Supreme Court. An affidavit must explain the relationship between the litigation and the officer's apex position with sufficient specificity; conclusory assertions of lack of knowledge are inadequate to invoke the apex doctrine protection.
[1] Under the apex doctrine adopted in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(h), an officer seeking a protective order against deposition must submit an affidavit explaining…
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“[B]ald assertions of ignorance will not do.”
The Florida Supreme Court's standard for evaluating apex doctrine affidavits under the amended rule.
A corporate officer of Premier Worldwide Marketing, LLC and Premier Guest Services, LLC submitted an affidavit claiming to lack unique or personal kno…
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 Apex Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Mark D. Tinker of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Tampa, for petitioner. Joseph J. Slama, Christopher W. Royer, and Kelley B. Stewart of Krupnick Campbell Malone Buser Slama Hancock, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for respondent David Hoffmann, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lisa Hoffmann.
PER CURIAM.
In August 2021, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(h) to expressly adopt the apex doctrine in the corporate context. In re Amend. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.280, 324 So. 3d 459, 461 (Fla. 2021). In doing so, specific affidavit requirements were established for an officer seeking a protective order preventing the officer from being subject to a deposition.
Per the new rule, the officer’s affidavit must explain that the officer “lacks unique, personal knowledge of the issues being litigated.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(h). The Florida Supreme Court specified that “[b]ald assertions of ignorance will not do.” In re Amend. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.280, 324 So. 3d at 463. An explanation of the relationship between the litigation and the officer’s apex position is necessary for the court to sufficiently evaluate the applicability of the officer’s personal knowledge. Id.
In relevant part, the affidavit in this case states only:
I lack unique or personal knowledge of the issues being litigated in this matter apart from the information provided in the numerous depositions taken of the current and past executives/representatives of Defendant, Premier Worldwide Marketing, LLC and Defendant, Premier Guest Services, LLC. This is the type of “bald assertion of ignorance” disapproved by the Florida Supreme Court. The affidavit was insufficient, and the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in compelling the deposition of the corporate officer. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
Petition denied. GROSS, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.