Rav Bah. Ltd. v. Marlin Three, LLC

• Decision Date: 02 February 2022
• Docket Number: 3D21-976
• Citation: 333 So.3d 1158
• Parties: RAV BAHAMAS LTD., etc., et al., Appellants, v. MARLIN THREE, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

333 So.3d 1158

RAV BAHAMAS LTD., etc., et al., Appellants,

v.MARLIN THREE, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D21-976

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 2, 2022

Kula & Associates, P.A., and W. Aaron Daniel, and Elliot B. Kula ; Bell Rosquete Reyes Esteban, PLLC, and Javier A. Reyes ; Peterson, Baldor & Maranges, PLLC, and Matthew Maranges, Miami, for appellants.

Metschlaw, P.A., and Lawrence R. Metsch, Miami, for appellees.

Before LOGUE, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.

LOBREE, J.

Marlin Three, LLC ("Marlin Three"), Eduardo Suarez, and Armando Alex Brana III (collectively the "Marlin Three Parties") filed a complaint for pure bill of discovery against Bimini Bay Resort Management, Ltd. ("Bimini Bay"), Jesse T. Singer, C.P.A., RAV Bahamas, Ltd. ("RAV"), and Capo Group, Inc. (collectively the "Bimini Bay Parties"). Following denial of the Bimini Bay Parties' motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court entered a final order granting the pure bill of discovery directing the Bimini Bay Parties to produce the documents sought in the pure bill of discovery. The Bimini Bay Parties appeal from the final order granting the pure bill of discovery. Because the Marlin Three Parties' complaint failed to state a proper cause of action for a pure bill of discovery, we reverse.

Factual and Procedural Background

Bimini Bay is the manager of the Bimini Bay Marina, Bimini, the Bahamas (the "Marina"), and RAV is the developer. The Marlin Three Parties filed a complaint for pure bill of discovery against the Bimini Bay Parties seeking "to confirm the identities of the proper defendants and the appropriate legal theories of relief." The Marlin Three Parties alleged that each "own" a boat slip in the Marina. In paragraph fourteen of the complaint, the Marlin Three Parties alleged that each would permit friends and distant family members to use the boat slips for free, while they would charge others to use the slips. The Marlin Three Parties further alleged that Bimini Bay notified them in May 2019 that Articles 2(7) and 2(8) of the Boat Slip Lease would be enforced against them. A copy of an unsigned Boat Slip Lease was attached to the complaint. The relevant Articles of the Boat Slip Lease provide that the tenant covenants (1) not to "demise sublet or part with possession of the whole or any part of the Boat Slip" unless agreed to by the landlord, RAV, and (2) not to allow the benefits of the lease to be used by anyone other than immediate family, while a guest may use the slip for no more than five days provided the tenant not charge for its use. In paragraph fifteen of the complaint, the Marlin Three Parties alleged Hurricane Irma "destroyed" the Marina, and that RAV received insurance benefits for the destruction, levied special assessments against them, and rebuilt the Marina.

The Marlin Three Parties alleged they were "concerned" that (1) "their boat slip ownership rights have been violated by the policy change" described in paragraph fourteen and (2) the property insurance benefits and special assessments as set forth in paragraph fifteen "were not properly expended." The Marlin Three Parties sought the inspection of all documents the Bimini Bay Parties possessed "which, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, pertain to the (a) policy change referred to in [paragraph] 14 of this complaint and (b) the expenditure of the funds referred in [paragraph] 15 of this complaint."

The Bimini Bay Parties moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Marlin Three Parties did not allege facts justifying relief under a pure bill of discovery. Specifically, the Bimini Bay Parties asserted that the Marlin Three Parties have already identified Bimini Bay as the Marina's manager and RAV as the entity that received proceeds and rebuilt the Marina. The Marlin Three Parties have also already identified claims for improper enforcement of the seabed subleases and alleged misuse of funds to rebuild the Marina. Moreover, because the Marlin Three Parties have alleged a legal remedy, there is no basis for the equitable remedy of a pure bill of discovery. The Marlin Three Parties responded that they seek documents maintained by the Bimini Bay Parties in Miami for a possible civil action, "probably in the Courts of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas." They argued that the Bahamian courts "would be hard-pressed" to supervise discovery of documents maintained by the Bimini Bay Parties in Miami, whereas the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit is "ideally situated" to manage discovery. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss.

The Bimini Bay Parties then answered the complaint and asserted affirmative defenses. After the case was set for a non-jury trial, the Bimini Bay Parties moved for judgment on the pleadings under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(c). The Bimini Bay Parties again argued that the Marlin Three Parties were improperly using a pure bill of discovery to confirm suspected claims where they had already identified potential defendants and theories of liability, and that the Marlin Three Parties could seek a legal remedy in the Bahamas. The Marlin Three Parties responded that they were entitled to relief by way of a pure bill of discovery "in order to obtain information and documentation which they could subsequently use to prosecute breach of contract and business tort claims in the Courts of The Bahamas."

The trial court conducted a hearing on the Bimini Bay Parties' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Bimini Bay Parties argued that the complaint was insufficient on its face to state a pure bill of discovery. The Marlin Three Parties maintained that it was proper to utilize a pure bill of discovery to access documents located in Miami which would "probably" be used in a suit filed in a Bahamian court, conceding that "[i]f we come up dry, if there's no information there to show we have a cause of action, then we go home and that's the end of it." The Marlin Three Parties further argued that a pure bill of discovery was "the most efficient way we can utilize the resources of this court and be able to litigate down the road," asserting that if they instead have to return to the circuit court to seek ancillary support for a Bahamian-court action, "[i]t's too expensive, it takes too long .... It's too much. This is the easy way to do it." At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated that it was denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings and ordering the Bimini Bay Parties to produce the documents sought.¹

The trial court subsequently entered a final order granting the pure bill of discovery. In the final order, the trial court denied the Bimini Bay Parties' motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Marlin Three Parties' complaint for a pure bill of discovery, and directed the Bimini Bay Parties to produce within thirty days documents "which, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, pertain to the (a) policy change referred to in [paragraph] 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint in this civil action; and (b) the expenditure of the funds referred to in [paragraph] 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint in this civil action." This appeal followed, and the order was stayed pending the outcome.

Analysis

"In the absence of an adequate legal remedy, equity has long authorized a pure bill of discovery as an appropriate remedy to obtain information such as the identity of a proper party defendant or the appropriate legal theory for relief." Trak Microwave Corp. v. Culley, 728 So. 2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). A bill of discovery may also be used "to obtain information necessary for meeting a condition precedent to filing suit." Mendez v. Cochran, 700 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). However, this Court has made clear that a pure bill of discovery does not lie "to substantiate one's suspected causes of action." Vorbeck v. Betancourt, 107 So. 3d 1142, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ; accord Venezia Lakes Homeowners Ass'n v. Precious Homes at Twin Lakes Prop. Owners Ass'n, 34 So. 3d 755, 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (reversing final summary judgment ordering appellant to produce contracts sought in appellee's pure bill of discovery where appellee sought "the contracts only to determine if it has a cause of action," and stating that parties may not use trial court's resources "to substantiate their claims" pre-suit); Kirlin v. Green, 955 So. 2d 28, 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ("A pure bill of discovery, however, is not to be used to determine whether evidence exists to support an allegation, but rather to determine in the absence of an adequate legal remedy ‘the identity of a proper party defendant or the appropriate legal theory for relief.’ " (quoting Trak Microwave Corp., 728 So. 2d at 1178 )). "Neither is it available simply to obtain a preview of discovery obtainable once suit is filed. Such a use of the bill places an undue burden on the court system." Mendez, 700 So. 2d at 47 ; accord Vorbeck, 107...