Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Family Enterprises, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.

    275 So. 3d 757 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)

    According to our case law, the trial court is not precluded from considering the time an expert spent in preparing to testify, but may exercise broad discretion in this regard. See Winter Park Imps., Inc. v. JM Family Enters., Inc., 77 So. 3d 227, 231–32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Thus, we conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing to tax the expert's preparation time for the deposition and evidentiary hearing.

  2. Foot & Ankle Ctr. of Fla. v. Vargas

    No. 6D23-665 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2024)

    As the Fifth District put it: "[W]here a party seeking fees and costs has been afforded an evidentiary hearing, it is not entitled to a second bite at the apple to prove its claim." Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Family Enters., Inc., 77 So.3d 227, 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

  3. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Santos

    390 So. 3d 171 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)

    However, unlike Deshpande, we do not remand with directions for the trial court to accept the reductions proffered by the insurer’s expert, as there is evidence and testimony proffered by both sides. Cf. 314 So. 3d at 420 (citing Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Fam. Enters., Inc., 77 So. 3d 227, 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ("[A]s a general rule, where a party seeking fees and costs has been afforded an evidentiary hearing, it is not entitled to a second bite at the apple to prove its claim.")).

  4. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Deshpande

    314 So. 3d 416 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 18 times
    Reversing application of fee multiplier where the record is devoid of evidence of the relevant market factor

    "[W]here a party seeking fees and costs has been afforded an evidentiary hearing, it is not entitled to a second bite at the apple to prove its claim." Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Family Enters., Inc., 77 So. 3d 227, 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). We note, however, that "the opponent of a fee has the burden of pointing out with specificity which hours should be deducted.

  5. Gualtieri v. Keyser

    219 So. 3d 972 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times
    Finding that where party opposing motion for costs makes it known that he objects to reasonableness of costs, trial court erred in awarding such costs without any testimony regarding reasonableness of costs

    We agree. See Nasser v. Nasser , 975 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (affirming the denial of costs of depositions where the moving party failed to meet her burden in the trial court to show that the requested costs were reasonably necessary); cf. Winter Park Imps., Inc. v. JM Family Enters., Inc. , 77 So.3d 227, 231–32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (affirming costs for certain transcripts and depositions where lead counsel testified via affidavit and without objection as to the reasonableness and necessity of the costs). Accordingly, this portion of the cost award must be stricken.

  6. Tesla Electric, Armature & Machine, Inc. v. JLM Advanced Technical Services, Inc.

    128 So. 3d 865 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that costs under section 57.041 are mandatory and a trial court errs when it does not afford the moving party the opportunity to show that the requested costs were reasonably necessary to its defense at an evidentiary hearing

    While some of the costs JLM requested were clearly inappropriate, a total denial of costs should not have occurred without an evidentiary hearing. See Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Family Enterps., Inc., 77 So.3d 227, 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (requiring an evidentiary hearing when the opposing party objects to the requested costs). We reverse and remand for the trial court to afford JLM the opportunity to show at an evidentiary hearing that the requested costs were reasonably necessary to JLM's defense.