DOWNTOWN TOWING COMPANY
v.
ENERGY-CARGO MGT, LLC
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 party seeking leave to amend a complaint to add punitive damages must attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion and provide evidence supporting the punitive damages claim prior to the hearing, and the trial court must make an affirmative finding of a reasonable evidentiary basis for such damages.
[1] Certiorari review of an order granting leave to amend a complaint to seek punitive damages is limited to whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements…
[2] Appellate courts do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review a trial court's determination that there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovering punitive damages…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Moving to amend without attaching a copy of the proposed amended pleading is insufficient.”
From Varnedore v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741, 747-48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), cited to establish the mandatory nature of the pleading attachment requirement.
Downtown Towing Company appealed an order granting Energy-Cargo MGT, LLC leave to seek punitive damages. Downtown Towing failed to comply with predica…
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 Punitive Damages Pleading Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Downtown Towing Company, appeals from an order granting a motion for leave to seek punitive damages against appellee, Energy-Cargo MGT, LLC. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5). Based upon Energy-Cargo’s proper and commendable confession of error and our own independent review of the record, we conclude Downtown Towing failed to comply with the predicate procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2023), before seeking punitive damages. See Leinberger v. Magee, 226 So. 3d 899, 900–01 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“First, the movant must attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion seeking leave to amend, in compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a). . . . Second, . . . the ‘proffer’ or other evidence of record to support the punitive damages claim must be served prior to the hearing on the motion for leave to amend. . . . Third, the trial court must make an affirmative finding that the plaintiff made a ‘“reasonable showing by evidence,” which would provide a “reasonable evidentiary basis for recovering such damages” if the motion to amend is granted.’”) (quoting Varnedore v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741, 747–48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)); Varnedore, 210, So. 3d at 745 (“Moving to amend without attaching a copy of the proposed amended pleading is insufficient.”); Taylor v. City of Lake
3
Worth, 964 So. 2d 243, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a)’s requirement of attaching proposed amended pleading to motion to amend is mandatory); see also Caprio v. Castro, 299 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quashing trial court’s order due to “proper and commendable confession of error” for failure to comply with requirements of section 768.72). Given the procedural error, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith and express no opinion on the propriety of punitive damages.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Birdie M. Varnedore, M.D. v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Taylor v. City OF Lake Worth, 964 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Leinberger v. Magee, 226 So. 3d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Caprio v. Castro, 299 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)