Summary
requiring the trial court to make an affirmative finding for punitive damages claims brought pursuant to section 400.0237
Summary of this case from John Knox Vill. of Cent. Fla. v. Estate of LawrenceOpinion
Case No. 2D19-4351
10-14-2020
EAST BAY NC, LLC ; Clear Choice Health Care, LLC; and Margaret Dalton, Petitioners, v. Melanie REDDISH, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Elisabeth Djadjich Reddish, Respondent.
Kirsten K. Ullman, Bruce D. Peisner and McLane E. Evans of Ullman Bursa Law, Tampa, for Petitioners. Megan L. Gisclar and Dara A. Cooley of Wilkes & McHugh, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent.
Kirsten K. Ullman, Bruce D. Peisner and McLane E. Evans of Ullman Bursa Law, Tampa, for Petitioners.
Megan L. Gisclar and Dara A. Cooley of Wilkes & McHugh, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent.
SLEET, Judge.
East Bay NC, LLC, Clear Choice Health Care, LLC, and Margaret Dalton (collectively, Petitioners) seek a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court's October 17, 2019, order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add a Claim for Punitive Damages Against All Defendants. Because the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 400.0237, Florida Statutes (2019), we grant the petition and quash the order.
We note that Reddish filed a motion for clarification of the October 17, 2019, order during the pendency of this certiorari proceeding and that the trial court granted the motion and issued an amended order on December 9, 2019, nunc pro tunc to October 17, 2019. That amended order is not before us.
On October 9, 2017, Melanie Reddish filed a complaint, alleging a violation of nursing home resident rights, breach of fiduciary duty by East Bay, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Clear Choice, and exploitation of a vulnerable adult against Clear Choice. On January 9, 2019, Reddish served her motion to amend to add a claim for punitive damages under section 400.0237. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court entered a handwritten order granting Plaintiff's motion, stating:
Plaintiff having met to the satisfaction of the Court the standard for pleading a claim for punitive damages pursuant to section 400.0237, Florida Statutes, and Rule 1.190(f), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, said Motion be and is granted and Plaintiff shall file/serve forthwith the Amended Complaint (a draft of which is attached to said motion).
Petitioners now seek certiorari review of this order. To be entitled to certiorari review, the petitioners "must establish (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the trial (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal." Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646, 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Petitioners maintain that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by failing to comply with the procedural requirements of section 400.0237. We agree.
" Section 400.0237 creates 'a substantive legal right' in chapter 400 proceedings 'not to be subject to a punitive damages claim and ensuing financial worth discovery until the trial court makes a determination that there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages.' " Carpenters Home Estates, Inc. v. Sanders, 286 So. 3d 830, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995) (holding that in the context of section 786.72, Florida Statutes (1993), the punitive damages statute is generally applicable to civil actions)). "Because a plenary appeal cannot restore a defendant's statutory right under section 400.0237, we have certiorari jurisdiction to determine whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 400.0237...." Id. at 831-32. However, the scope of review is "not so broad as to encompass review of the sufficiency of the evidence." Globe Newspaper Co., 658 So. 2d at 520.
When a plaintiff files a motion for leave to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages under chapter 400, the trial court must comply with section 400.0237. Section 400.0237(1)(b) requires the trial court to conduct a hearing and determine whether the plaintiff has presented "sufficient admissible evidence ... to ensure that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the claimant, at trial, will be able to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the recovery of [punitive] damages is warranted."
In making that determination, the trial court must identify the admissible evidence proffered by the plaintiff on the record within the order and/or articulate on the record how the evidence supports a reasonable basis to believe the claimant can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that recovery of punitive damages is warranted. See Cat Cay Yacht Club, Inc. v. Diaz, 264 So. 3d 1071, 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (holding that the trial court did not comply with procedural requirements in granting a motion to amend complaint to add a claim for punitive damages where it made no findings identifying the evidence it considered sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for granting the motion); see also Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Croft, 299 So. 3d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (finding a departure from the essential requirements of section 400.0237 where the trial court's order "does not apply the admissible evidence presented by the Estate to the criteria of the statute ... [nor] does the transcript of the hearing on the motion to amend reflect that the trial court applied the admissible evidence to the statutory criteria"). Absent oral findings in the record which establish entitlement to plead punitive damages, a boilerplate order that parrots the provisions of the statute without identifying the admissible evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing is insufficient. Such an order renders the appellate court unable to identify what, if any, admissible evidence was relied upon to make the determination. Identifying the evidence within the order will enable an appellate court to better determine procedural compliance with the statute.
In the instant case, although the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to the statute, it did not mention the admissible evidence supporting a claim for punitive damages. Its order granting the motion did not cite the correct statutory standard of proof, nor did it identify any admissible evidence considered to constitute a "reasonable basis" for the recovery of punitive damages. See § 400.0237(1)(b). As a result, the trial court failed to ensure that based on sufficient admissible evidence, there was a reasonable basis to believe that Reddish will be able to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence at trial that the recovery of punitive damages is warranted against the nursing home defendants under a claim for either direct or vicarious liability. See Carpenters, 286 So. 3d at 832. Accordingly, the trial court's order does not comply with the procedural requirements of section 400.0237, and we grant the petition and quash the order granting leave to amend.
Petition granted; order quashed.
Kelly and LaRose, JJ., Concur.