Three Lions Construction, Inc. v. Namm Group, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Three Lions Construction, Inc. v. Namm Group, Inc.

183 So. 3d 1119, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11053

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 22, 2015

Docket14-0880

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 183 So. 3d 1119 (Three Lions Construction, Inc. v. Namm Group, 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

Three Lions Construction, Inc. v. Namm Group, Inc., 183 So. 3d 1119, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11053 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

SUAREZ, C.J. '

= Appellant Three Lions Construction, Inc. (“Three Lions”) challenges the denial of its motion for attorney’s fees, based on a proposal for settlement, after dismissal of the underlying action by Appellee The Namm Group, Inc. (“Namm”). We reverse.

During the pendency of the underlying litigation, Three Lions served on Namm a Proposal for Settlement pursuant to Section 768.69, Florida Statutes (2012) and Rule 1.442, of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure on Namm. Prior to the expiration of the time within which it could properly accept the Proposal, Namm filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Accept Settlement Proposal. However, Three Lions did not agree to the extension of time and Namm took no steps to have the motion heard.

More than 90 days later, Namm served a Notice of Acceptance of the Settlement Proposal. After being notified by Three Lions that the purported acceptance was untimely, Namm filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Within 30 days after the voluntary dismissal, Three Lions filed a Motion for Fees and Costs, pursuant to the Proposal for Settlement. Following other proceedings not relevant here, and a hearing, the trial court , denied the motion without explanation.

We reverse because Namm’s Motion for Extension of Time to Accept Settlement *1120 Proposal was ineffective to toll the time for acceptance of the proposal, where Three Lions did not agree to the extension and Namm did not obtain a hearing on the motion prior to the expiration of the time for acceptance of the Proposal. Donohoe v. Starmed Staffing, Inc., 743 So.2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); 5 Fla. Prac„ Civil Procedure § 11:5 n. 22. Because Three Lions’ Proposal for Settlement was otherwise proper, it was entitled to attorney’s fees based on that Proposal. We reject Appellee’s claim that the Proposal did not satisfy the requirements of Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362, 377 (Fla.2013).

Reversed and remanded for determination of the amount of Three Lions’ fees by the trial court.

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

SUAREZ, C.J. '

= Appellant Three Lions Construction, Inc. (“Three Lions”) challenges the denial of its motion for attorney’s fees, based on a proposal for settlement, after dismissal of the underlying action by Appellee The Namm Group, Inc. (“Namm”). We reverse.

During the pendency of the underlying litigation, Three Lions served on Namm a Proposal for Settlement pursuant to Section 768.69, Florida Statutes (2012) and Rule 1.442, of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure on Namm. Prior to the expiration of the time within which it could properly accept the Proposal, Namm filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Accept Settlement Proposal. However, Three Lions did not agree to the extension of time and Namm took no steps to have the motion heard.

More than 90 days later, Namm served a Notice of Acceptance of the Settlement Proposal. After being notified by Three Lions that the purported acceptance was untimely, Namm filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Within 30 days after the voluntary dismissal, Three Lions filed a Motion for Fees and Costs, pursuant to the Proposal for Settlement. Following other proceedings not relevant here, and a hearing, the trial court , denied the motion without explanation.

We reverse because Namm’s Motion for Extension of Time to Accept Settlement *1120 Proposal was ineffective to toll the time for acceptance of the proposal, where Three Lions did not agree to the extension and Namm did not obtain a hearing on the motion prior to the expiration of the time for acceptance of the Proposal. Donohoe v. Starmed Staffing, Inc., 743 So.2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); 5 Fla. Prac„ Civil Procedure § 11:5 n. 22. Because Three Lions’ Proposal for Settlement was otherwise proper, it was entitled to attorney’s fees based on that Proposal. We reject Appellee’s claim that the Proposal did not satisfy the requirements of Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362, 377 (Fla.2013).

Reversed and remanded for determination of the amount of Three Lions’ fees by the trial court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 3d 1119, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/three-lions-construction-inc-v-namm-group-inc-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack