PIERRE RICHARD STANICLAS
v.
ALEXANDER GAMARNIK
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 defaulting defendant's admission of allegations in a complaint does not operate as an admission against a non-defaulting co-defendant.
[1] The default of one defendant in a multi-defendant action, although constituting an admission of the complaint's allegations as against that defaulting defendant, does not…
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 intelligencePlaintiff Pierre Richard Staniclas appealed a circuit court judgment in Miami-Dade County involving multiple defendants, including Alexander Gamarnik.…
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 Fla. Stat. § 768.72 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Dade Cnty. v. Lambert, 334 So. 2d 844, 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (applying rule that “default of one defendant, although an admission by him of the allegations of the complaint, does not operate as an admission of such allegation as against a contesting co-defendant” notwithstanding that non-defaulted defendant’s liability was vicarious to defaulting defendant’s negligence); Ridard v. Massa Inv. Grp., LLC, 337 So. 3d 862, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply where, as here, the case on which the estoppel claim is based is still at issue. . . . Necessarily, ‘the particular matter must be fully litigated and determined in a contest that results in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.’” (quoting Bradenton Group, Inc. v. State, 970 So. 2d 403, 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007))); Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA
2017) (“[Section 768.72, Florida Statutes] requires the trial court to act as a gatekeeper and precludes a claim for punitive damages where there is no reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery.”).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Staniclas v. Gamarnik (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
Staniclas v. Deric L. Bogran (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. v. Lambert, 334 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Jane Bistline, M.D. v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Offord v. State, 970 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Staniclas v. Gamarnik (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)