Arista Floral Corporation v. HP Inc.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 1, 2026
Docket3D2025-1699
StatusPublished

This text of Arista Floral Corporation v. HP Inc. (Arista Floral Corporation v. HP Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arista Floral Corporation v. HP Inc., (Fla. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 1, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1699 Lower Tribunal No. 25-54352-SP-26 ________________

Arista Floral Corporation, Appellant,

vs.

HP Inc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence D. King, Judge.

Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, and Nancy W. Gregoire Stamper (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, and Brian M. Ercole and Melissa Marie Coates, for appellee.

Before, GORDO, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Cornfeld v. Plaza of the Americas Club, Inc., 306 So. 3d

1136, 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[A] trial court’s award of costs is reviewed

by appellate courts for an abuse of discretion. However, to the extent the

issues involve statutory construction or the legal determination of whether

and what costs may be awarded at all, our standard of review is de novo.”

(citations omitted)); Lee v. Animal Aid, Inc., 388 So. 3d 25, 31 (Fla. 4th DCA

2024) (“It goes without saying that non-attorneys proceeding pro se are not

entitled to an award of attorney's fees.” (citing Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432,

435 (1991))); Schultheis v. Schultheis, No. 3D23-1250, 2026 WL 516519, at

*1 (Fla. 3d DCA February 25, 2026) (“[Costs are] an allowance to a party of

expenses incurred in the successful transaction or defense of a suit.

[Attorney’s fees are] compensation to an officer for services rendered in the

progress of the cause.” (citations omitted)); Short v. State, 579 So. 2d 163,

164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (“The fact that the defendant requested

reimbursement of his attorneys' fees as ‘taxable costs’ does not transform

fees into costs.”); FLOPRO, LLC v. EOX Tech. Sols., Inc., 375 So. 3d 904,

905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“[L]egal research is not recoverable as a taxable

cost. Nor is postage, which is an office expense. Parking, mileage, and

meals should also be deducted from the cost award.” (citations omitted));

Centex-Rooney Const. Co., Inc. v. Martin Cnty., 725 So. 2d 1255, 1261 (Fla.

2 4th DCA 1999) (“[M]eals (other than business meals), equipment, postage

and freight, equipment maintenance, printing, communication charges,

temporary help, documents processing, graphics and similar administrative

expenses were improperly taxed as costs.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

CENTEX-ROONEY CONST. CO. v. Martin County
725 So. 2d 1255 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Short v. State
579 So. 2d 163 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Arista Floral Corporation v. HP Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arista-floral-corporation-v-hp-inc-fladistctapp-2026.