People Tech Grp., Inc. v. Sys. Soft Techs., LLC

Decision Date01 April 2015
Docket NumberNo. 2D14–3787.,2D14–3787.
Citation160 So.3d 537
PartiesPEOPLE TECH GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. SYSTEM SOFT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Timothy W. Weber and Amanda A. Felten of Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Scott T. Lyon and Nancy S. Paikoff of Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, Clearwater, for Appellee.

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Judge.

People Tech Group, Inc. appeals an order finding it in contempt and awarding sanctions of costs and attorney's fees because People Tech failed to comply with a court order to complete a postjudgment fact information sheet. Because the trial court made no finding that People Tech's noncompliance was intentional and the facts present considerable doubt as to People Tech's intent, we reverse.

People Tech, a Washington company, hired Florida counsel to respond to a breach of contract action filed by System Soft Technologies, LLC, in February 2013. Counsel withdrew after filing an answer and affirmative defenses on behalf of People Tech, and summary final judgment was entered in favor of System Soft in the amount of $26,720 on March 31, 2014. The final judgment ordered People Tech to complete and serve on System Soft's counsel a fact information sheet, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.977, within forty-five days of the judgment. In July 2014, People Tech received an order to appear before the court on July 29, 2014, and show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to complete and serve a fact information sheet as ordered.

People Tech alleges this was the first time it learned that a judgment had been entered against it in this case and it thus was not aware of the order requiring it to complete a fact information sheet.

Upon receiving the order to show cause, People Tech obtained new counsel, filed an affidavit asserting its lack of notice of the final judgment, and sought relief from the final judgment as void for lack of notice.1 In his affidavit, People Tech's principal, Vishwa Prasad, explained that People Tech was not aware of counsel's withdrawal and had not received prior pleadings, notices, or a copy of the final judgment, all of which were sent to a Washington residence owned by Mr. Prasad rather than People Tech's principal place of business. The affidavit stated that Mr. Prasad and his family were frequently away from the Washington residence for extended periods of time and thus did not receive or monitor mail at that residence. He was unaware why People Tech's former counsel had designated that residence as People Tech's last known address in the motion and order on withdrawal of counsel, and People Tech never advised counsel to send correspondences to that address.2

A hearing was held on the order to show cause and People Tech's cross-noticed motion for protective order. Counsel for People Tech argued that People Tech should not be held in contempt for failing to complete the fact information sheet because it lacked actual notice of the order, as set forth in the affidavit, and the failure to comply was not willful. No testimony or other evidence was received at the hearing, though System Soft's counsel later filed an affidavit stating that the pleadings had been sent to People Tech at the address designated in the order granting withdrawal of counsel, and none of those documents had been returned. The trial court subsequently entered an order finding People Tech “failed to show good cause for its non-compliance” with the court's order. The court thus found People Tech to be in contempt, ordered it to pay a sanction of System Soft's attorney's fees and costs, and denied People Tech's motion for protective order.

“A contempt order imposing sanctions comes to this Court with a presumption of correctness and will only be overturned upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion or departed from the essential requirements of law.”Creative Choice Homes, II, Ltd. v. Keystone Guard Servs., Inc., 137 So.3d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). “Contempt is an intentional offense against the authority of the court or a judge performing his...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT