Closuit v. Crane Environmental, Inc.

850 So. 2d 652, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11156, 2003 WL 21713547
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 25, 2003
DocketNo. 2D02-2744
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 850 So. 2d 652 (Closuit v. Crane Environmental, 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
Closuit v. Crane Environmental, Inc., 850 So. 2d 652, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11156, 2003 WL 21713547 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

The circuit court entered a final judgment awarding Crane Environmental attorneys’ fees as a sanction for the discovery violations of the defendants, Edward Closuit, Myriam Murphy, and Andalite Industries.1 The defendants challenge this judgment on four grounds, but we find merit in only one. We reverse the attorneys’ fees awarded for Crane’s counsels’ time spent in responding to a petition for common law certiorari filed in this court. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

The petition for certiorari sought review of the circuit court’s order striking the defendants’ trade secret objections to [653]*653Crane’s request for production of documents. Crane’s counsel responded to the petition but did not file a motion for attorneys’ fees with this court. We subsequently denied the defendants’ petition.

The circuit court determined that Crane was entitled to attorneys’ fees as a sanction for the defendants’ numerous discovery violations. Crane’s attorneys requested $36,442 in fees attributable to their time spent in responding to the petition for certiorari. The circuit court was aware that Crane had not sought fees in this court, but it awarded Crane that amount “as a deterrent and as a sanction.” We understand the court’s frustration with the defendants’ behavior. However, absent an authorization from this court, the circuit court had no authority to award attorneys’ fees for services in this court, even as a sanction. Wood v. Steen, 830 So.2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

We reverse the portion of the judgment that awards $36,442 for Crane’s counsels’ time spent in responding to the petition for writ of certiorari. Otherwise, we affirm.

STRINGER and CANADY, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Santiago v. Sunset Core Investments, Inc.
198 So. 3d 658 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Bartow HMA, LLC v. Kirkland
146 So. 3d 1213 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
850 So. 2d 652, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11156, 2003 WL 21713547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/closuit-v-crane-environmental-inc-fladistctapp-2003.