Simeon, Inc. v. Cox
| Citation | 671 So.2d 158 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 85984,85984 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly S153 SIMEON, INC., d/b/a Mega Movies; and Martin Traub, Petitioners, v. Donna COX and Michael Cox, husband and wife; and Juanita Arnold and Matthew Arnold, husband and wife, Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal--Direct Conflict of Decisions Fifth District--Case No. 94-945 (Brevard County).
Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham, Lane & Ford, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Petitioners.
Kurt Erlenbach of Erlenbach & Erlenbach, P.A., Titusville, for Respondents.
We have for review Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 655 So.2d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Two employees of Simeon, Inc., sued the corporation and its vice president alleging assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and malicious prosecution. The complaint, which contained the notarized signatures of both plaintiffs, included details of specific instances in which the vice president referred to each plaintiff individually as an "idiotic bitch," a "thief," and a "stupid fucking bitch," continually falsely accused both of stealing money, and swore to a criminal complaint accusing plaintiffs of stealing from the business. The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages.
Defendants moved to dismiss the punitive damages claim, asserting that the plaintiffs did not allege a sufficient basis to award punitive damages. Defendants also moved to strike the punitive damages claims, asserting that plaintiffs did not strictly comply with section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1993), because they failed to proffer any evidence or establish any record entitling plaintiffs to relief. At a hearing on the motions, the plaintiffs argued that by virtue of signing this complaint under oath, they had testified under oath about these acts and had complied with section 768.72. Thereafter, the trial court denied both motions.
Next, defendants sought a writ of certiorari in the Fifth District Court of Appeal. In denying the writ, the district court focused on the language in section 768.72 which states that "[i]n any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence ... proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages." See Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 655 So.2d 156, 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The court reasoned that while general allegations in a complaint are not enough to provide a reasonable basis, when a plaintiff alleges under oath specific instances such as the ones alleged here, a reasonable basis is provided. Id. The court then held that since the trial court considered the sworn allegations in the complaint and denied the motion to dismiss and motion to strike, it met its obligation to review the record before allowing the punitive damages claims. Id. at 158.
Judge Peterson dissented, stating that he would have granted the petition for certiorari. Judge Peterson noted that section 768.72 required a plaintiff to obtain leave from the court to incorporate a claim for punitive damages before the claim could be asserted. See Simeon, 655 So.2d at 159 (Peterson, J., dissenting). Thus, certiorari was appropriate to review the denial of a motion to strike a punitive damages claim in which the plaintiff has not sought prior leave of the court to make the claim. See id. (Peterson, J., dissenting). Since the record did not reflect any effort to request leave to assert a punitive damages claim, Judge Peterson would have granted certiorari, quashed the order denying the motion to dismiss and alternative motion to strike, and remanded the action to the trial court for further proceedings without prejudice to allow the plaintiffs to follow the procedures required by section 768.72. Id. (Peterson, J., dissenting).
We accepted jurisdiction because this case expressly and directly conflicts with this Court's recent decision in Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995). In Globe Newspaper, we analyzed section 768.72, which provides:
In any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for the recovery of such damages. The claimant may move to amend his complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages as allowed by the rules of civil procedure. The rules of civil procedure shall be liberally construed so as to allow the claimant discovery of evidence which appears reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence on the issue of punitive damages. No discovery of financial worth shall proceed until after the pleading concerning punitive damages is permitted.
We found that this section creates a substantive legal right not to be subjected to a punitive damages claim and ensuing financial worth discovery until the trial court makes a determination that there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages. Id. at 519. Reaching this decision, we looked to the plain meaning of the statute and found that it requires the plaintiff to show this evidentiary basis before the court may allow such a claim. Consequently, we concluded that certiorari jurisdiction is appropriate to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 but not so broad as to encompass review of the sufficiency of the evidence when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72. Id. at 520. In so holding, we stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Estaleiro Itajai S/a
...a right "not to be subjected to a punitive damages claim and ensuing financial worth discovery" without leave of court. Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1996) (citing Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla.1995)). This right is so important to the people of the Sta......
-
Neill v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.
...worth discovery — without a prior judicial determination that a reasonable evidentiary basis exists for the claim. Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla. 1996); Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla.1995); Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So.2d 106, 110 (Fla......
-
Tutor Time Child Care Systems v. Franks Inv. Group
...768.72 forbids a party even to raise a punitive damages claim in its complaint without prior leave of the Court. Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1996). Before permitting such a punitive damages claim, the Court must first "make a legal determination that the kind of claim in su......
-
Cohen v. Office Depot
...768.72 as requiring the dismissal of any request for punitive damages asserted without leave of the court. See Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1996) (concluding "[i]t was inconsequential that the trial court ... held a hearing" to determine whether there was an evidentiary basi......
-
Misdemeanor defense
...an Affidavit of Non-Prosecution. [ See, e.g., Simeon, Inc. v. Cox , 665 So. 2d 156, 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), quashed on other grounds , 671 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1996).] FORM: See the following at the end of the chapter: • Form 17:10 Intake Questionnaire—Criminal Before speaking with a witness i......