Tilton v. Wrobel
Decision Date | 27 July 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 4D16–207.,4D16–207. |
Citation | 198 So.3d 909 |
Parties | Lynn TILTON and Patriarch Partners, LLC, Petitioners, v. Andrzej WROBEL, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David J. Zack and Kendall Coffey of Coffey Burlington, P.L., Miami, for petitioners.
John D. Goldsmith and Anne C. McAdams of Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A., Tampa, for respondent.
The petitioners seek certiorari review from a trial court order granting the respondent's motion for leave to amend his complaint to seek punitive damages on a claim of defamation per se. See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2015). The petitioners contend the trial court erred in failing to determine there was a sufficient evidentiary proffer to support amending the complaint to seek punitive damages. We agree and quash the trial court order.
At the hearing conducted on the motion, the respondent contended his proffer was sufficient because: (1) the complaint clearly established that he, as a wrongfully discharged employee, was seeking damages for defamation per se; (2) there was no dispute as to the words petitioner Tilton, an executive of the company, wrote in the letter to Forbes magazine stating that he stole from the company; and (3) his affidavit in support of the motion stated that he did not steal from the company. Much of the respondent's arguments focused on his contention that our opinion in Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So.3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), stands for the proposition that an action for defamation per se entitles a plaintiff to seek punitive damages because malice is presumed, and punitive damages are appropriate, even if the jury concludes there are no compensatory damages.
However, the petitioners argued at the hearing that the evidentiary showing for punitive damages required a proffer of evidence from which a jury could conclude, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioners knew the statement that the respondent stole money from the company was false. The petitioners further argued that the respondent's conclusory, self-serving statements in his affidavit were insufficient for the required proffer of evidence.
The trial court entered an order simply stating the motion was granted.
Section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2015), provides that a claim for punitive damages will not 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 recovery of such damages.” Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(f) provides:
Claims for Punitive Damages. A motion for leave to amend a pleading to assert a claim for punitive damages shall make a reasonable showing, by evidence in the record or evidence to be proffered by the claimant, that provides a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. The motion to amend can be filed separately and before the supporting evidence or proffer, but each shall be served on all parties at least 20 days before the hearing.
Notably, an evidentiary hearing is not required. Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ().
Certiorari review is available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but not to review the sufficiency of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gundel v. Av Homes, Inc.
...lies to review whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72(1)." (citing Tilton v. Wrobel, 198 So.3d 909, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ) ). In that way, the Anti-SLAPP statute bears some similarity to statutes providing for immunity from suit where the st......
-
Event Depot Corp. v. Frank
...768.72, Florida Statutes. Fla. Hosp. Med. Servs., LLC v. Newsholme , 255 So.3d 348, 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (citing Tilton v. Wrobel , 198 So.3d 909, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Globe Newspaper Co. , 658 So.2d at 520 ) ) ). Certiorari review is not available "to review the sufficiency o......
-
WG Evergreen Woods SH, LLC v. Fares
...with all applicable procedural requirements before granting a motion to amend pleadings to assert punitive damages. Tilton v. Wrobel , 198 So.3d 909, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; see also Munroe Reg'l Health Sys., Inc. v. Estate of Gonzales , 795 So.2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).Factual al......
-
Varnedore v. Copeland
...granting a motion to amend pleadings to assert claims for punitive damages. See Globe Newspaper, 658 So.2d at 520 ; Tilton v. Wrobel , 198 So.3d 909, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; Munroe Reg'l Health Sys., Inc. v. Estate of Gonzales , 795 So.2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Given the nature o......
-
Defamation & privacy
...Lowery v. McBee , 322 So.3d 110, 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). 3. Hoch v. Loren , 273 So.3d 56, 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). 4. Tilton v. Wrobel , 198 So.3d 909, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). 5. Blake v. Giustibelli , 182 So.3d 881, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). 6. NITV, LLC v. Baker, 61 So.3d 1249, 1254 (Fla.......