Parker, Landerman & Parker, P.A. v. Riccard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parker, Landerman & Parker, P.A. v. Riccard

871 So. 2d 1043, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6439, 2004 WL 1057782

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 2004

DocketNo. 5D04-443

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 871 So. 2d 1043 (Parker, Landerman & Parker, P.A. v. Riccard) 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

Parker, Landerman & Parker, P.A. v. Riccard, 871 So. 2d 1043, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6439, 2004 WL 1057782 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Petitioner, Parker, Landerman and Parker, P.A., [“The Parker Firm”], defendant in a legal malpractice action, seeks certio-rari review of an order which allowed the plaintiff, William D. Riccard [“Riccard”], to amend his complaint to state a claim for punitive damages, apparently predicated on alleged errors and omissions during its representation of Riccard.¹ The trial court conducted a hearing on Riccard’s motion. Riccard’s counsel argued that information learned through discovery supported the punitive damage claim. The Parker Firm asserted that the judge previously assigned to the case had correctly denied an identical motion, and Riccard’s counsel was not relying on any new information. After the hearing, the trial judge allowed the punitive damages claim to be added.

Section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2003), creates a substantive right not to be subjected to a punitive damage claim or [1044]*1044financial worth discovery until a trial court makes a determination that there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages. A district court of appeal possesses certiorari jurisdiction to review whether the trial court has conformed with the procedural requirements of the statute but cannot review the trial court’s decision to grant leave to amend the complaint once the procedural requirements have been followed. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995). See also Massey Services, Inc. v. Brown, 801 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Delta Health Group, Inc. v. Jackson, 798 So.2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Here, no procedural error appears. The certiorari petition is based on the contention that the facts in the record do not support a claim for punitive damages. This is the type of issue that this court cannot review by certiorari.

PETITION DENIED.

SAWAYA, C.J., and PLEUS, J., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

Petitioner, Parker, Landerman and Parker, P.A., [“The Parker Firm”], defendant in a legal malpractice action, seeks certio-rari review of an order which allowed the plaintiff, William D. Riccard [“Riccard”], to amend his complaint to state a claim for punitive damages, apparently predicated on alleged errors and omissions during its representation of Riccard.¹ The trial court conducted a hearing on Riccard’s motion. Riccard’s counsel argued that information learned through discovery supported the punitive damage claim. The Parker Firm asserted that the judge previously assigned to the case had correctly denied an identical motion, and Riccard’s counsel was not relying on any new information. After the hearing, the trial judge allowed the punitive damages claim to be added.

Section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2003), creates a substantive right not to be subjected to a punitive damage claim or [1044]*1044financial worth discovery until a trial court makes a determination that there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages. A district court of appeal possesses certiorari jurisdiction to review whether the trial court has conformed with the procedural requirements of the statute but cannot review the trial court’s decision to grant leave to amend the complaint once the procedural requirements have been followed. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995). See also Massey Services, Inc. v. Brown, 801 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Delta Health Group, Inc. v. Jackson, 798 So.2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Here, no procedural error appears. The certiorari petition is based on the contention that the facts in the record do not support a claim for punitive damages. This is the type of issue that this court cannot review by certiorari.

PETITION DENIED.

SAWAYA, C.J., and PLEUS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

871 So. 2d 1043, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6439, 2004 WL 1057782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-landerman-parker-pa-v-riccard-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack