BARTON PROTECTIVE SERVICES, LLC, D/B/A ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES

v.

ISADORA REDMON, ETC.

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 9, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-373 Lower Tribunal No. 18-32373

________________

Barton Protective Services, LLC, d/b/a AlliedBarton Security Services, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Isadora Redmon, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Holland & Knight LLP, and Christopher N. Bellows, for appellants. Ver Ploeg & Marino, and Michal Meiler; Obront Corey, PLLC, and Curt David Obront; Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Stephen F. Rosenthal and Christina H. Martinez, for appellee. Before SCALES, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. GORDO, J. Allied Universal and U.S. Security Associates, Inc., et al., (collectively, “Allied”) appeal a final judgment awarding $10,500,00.00 to Isadora Redmon (“Redmon”), as Personal Representative of the Estate of Andrew Darrell Griffin, Jr. (“Griffin”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Because Allied’s motion for relief raised a colorable entitlement to relief, the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing. We therefore reverse and remand.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Redmon sued Allied for damages in connection with the shooting and death of Griffin at an apartment complex in Liberty City, Florida. Redmon alleged that Allied was required to provide security services at the apartment complex on the night of the shooting and as a result, should pay damages for Griffin’s death. Allied answered and raised multiple affirmative defenses. The parties requested a jury trial. Instead, the trial court referred the case to nonbinding arbitration under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820. The arbitration took place on November 2, 2021. On November 30, 2021, the arbitrator served the decision by email to the parties. The email was sent to Allied’s three attorneys of record and two paralegals. Upon receiving the email, the Allied attorneys spoke to each other and decided they would proceed with a trial on the merits. Each lawyer believed the other would calendar the deadline for a motion for trial de novo and file the motion. The due date was not calendared.

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h), the due date for the motion for trial de novo was twenty days after service of the arbitration decision—here, December 20, 2021. On December 21, 2021, after no motion for trial de novo was filed by Allied, Redmon filed a motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Rule 1.820(h) and the nonbinding arbitration decision. On December 22, 2021—prior to entry of any final judgment by the trial court—Allied’s counsel filed a motion for trial de novo. On January 5, 2022—prior to entry of final judgment, Allied filed a motion for relief from the nonbinding arbitration judgment pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.540, 1.820 and 1.090. Allied attached sworn affidavits by the attorneys, averring the deadline was missed by two days due to excusable neglect and since no final judgment had been entered, an enlargement of time for filing a motion for trial de novo was permissible under Rule 1.090. On January 26, 2022, the trial court heard the parties’ pending motions. Allied argued it had raised a colorable claim of excusable neglect under Rules 1.540 and 1.090 and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Redmon argued that excusable neglect was not a basis to allow a late motion for trial de novo or relief from a nonbinding arbitration decision or resulting judgment and that a lawyer’s failure to calendar can never be excusable neglect. The trial court denied Allied’s request for an evidentiary hearing finding that the missed calendar deadline did not raise a colorable claim for excusable neglect. The trial court then entered a $10,500,000.00 final judgment against Allied and denied Allied’s motion for relief from nonbinding arbitration judgment. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“A trial court’s denial of relief from judgment upon a showing of excusable neglect, including relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Fast Funds, Inc. v. Aventura Orthopedic Care Ctr., 279 So. 3d 168, 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

LEGAL ANALYSIS

We solely address the issue of whether Allied was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.¹ Allied argues the trial court erred by failing to grant Allied an evidentiary hearing on its motion for relief from the nonbinding arbitration judgment. Redmon argues the trial court correctly ruled without