SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., ETC., ET AL.,
v.
ALANA RODRIGUEZ, ETC., ET AL.,
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.
This case concerns whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to review a trial court's decision to allow a plaintiff to amend their complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The appellate court held that it does not have jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the punitive damages claim, only whether the trial court followed the correct procedural requirements.
No, appellate courts do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review a trial judge's decision granting leave to amend a complaint to include a claim for punitive damages if the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72. The review is limited to procedural compliance, not the sufficiency of the evidence.
[1] Appellate courts have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes, but not…
[2] Certiorari review is not available to review a trial court's determination that there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which…
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“appellate courts do have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review a decision of a trial judge granting leave to amend a complaint to include a claim for punitive damages when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72.”
This quote establishes the limited scope of appellate review for orders granting leave to amend to add a punitive damages claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order allowing the respondent to amend her complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The …
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 Certiorari Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
LOGUE, J.
Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (“Sedgwick”), North Shore Medical Center d/b/a Florida Medical Center (“FMC”), and Amy Wilds (“Wilds”) petition this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash, in part, the trial court’s August 26, 2019 Order granting Respondent Alana Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) leave to amend her complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. Florida law is well-settled on this point: appellate courts do have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review a decision of a trial judge granting leave to amend a complaint to include a claim for punitive damages when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72. Certiorari is not available to review a determination that there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. Ross Dress For Less Va., Inc. v. Castro, 134 So. 3d 511, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995)); see, e.g., Cat Cay Yacht Club, Inc. v. Diaz, 264 So. 3d 1071, 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Review of an order granting a motion to amend to add a punitive damages claim requires us to consider whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . , but the scope of review is not so broad as to encompass review of the sufficiency of the evidence considered in that inquiry.” (citations and quotations omitted)).
In this case, we conclude that the procedural requirements of the statute were followed. See Levin v. Pritchard, 258 So. 3d 545, 547-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (concluding that the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of the statute because the plaintiff’s motion to amend detailed his claim, plaintiff proffered evidence to support his punitive damages claim and, after a hearing, the trial court applied the correct law and entered an order finding the proffer to be sufficient to support the claim).
Because we are bound by Globe, we cannot review the petitioners’ claims, which go beyond a determination of whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, and, instead, invite this Court to address the sufficiency of the evidence or the reasonableness of the trial court’s determination.1
Petition dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- TRG Desert INN Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky, 194 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Ross Dress FOR Less Va., Inc. v. Castro, 134 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- CAT CAY Yacht Club, Inc. v. Diaz, 264 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- Levin v. Pritchard, 258 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- The Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
- Osechas v. Correa Arcila, 271 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)