BARTON PROTECTIVE SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES v. ISADORA REDMON, etc.
22-0373
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Aug 9, 2023Background
- Redmon (personal representative of Griffin) sued Allied for wrongful death after Griffin was shot at an apartment complex; Allied was alleged to have contracted to provide security that night.
- The trial court referred the case to nonbinding arbitration; the arbitrator issued a decision served by email on November 30, 2021.
- Rule 1.820(h) required Allied to file a motion for trial de novo within 20 days (deadline: December 20, 2021). Allied’s three counsel received the arbitration email but each assumed another would calendar and file the motion; the deadline was missed.
- Redmon moved for entry of final judgment; before the court entered judgment, Allied filed a belated motion for trial de novo (Dec. 22) and a motion for relief from the arbitration judgment under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540, 1.820 and 1.090 with affidavits asserting excusable neglect.
- The trial court denied Allied an evidentiary hearing, concluded the missed calendar date was not a colorable claim of excusable neglect, entered a $10,500,000 final judgment for Redmon, and denied relief. Allied appealed.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding Allied’s motion raised a colorable claim of excusable neglect such that an evidentiary hearing was required before denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Redmon) | Defendant's Argument (Allied) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allied was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on its motion for relief from the nonbinding arbitration judgment based on excusable neglect for missing the Rule 1.820(h) deadline | Missed deadline cannot be excusable neglect to allow a late motion for trial de novo or relief; attorney calendaring failure is never excusable | Counsel’s sworn affidavits show inadvertent calendaring error and excusable neglect; no final judgment had been entered, and Rule 1.090 permits enlargement where appropriate; thus an evidentiary hearing is required | Reversed. Allied raised a colorable claim of excusable neglect; the trial court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing and must hold one on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fast Funds, Inc. v. Aventura Orthopedic Care Ctr., 279 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (standard of review for denial of relief from judgment)
- Cottrell v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp., 198 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (where a rule 1.540 motion alleges a colorable entitlement to relief, an evidentiary hearing is appropriate)
- Schleger v. Stebelsky, 957 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (motions for relief from judgment should not be summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing)
- Noel v. James B. Nutter & Co., 232 So. 3d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (excusable neglect includes clerical or calendaring errors and other reasonable misunderstandings)
- SunTrust Mortg. v. Torrenga, 153 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (attorney inadvertent calendaring error can constitute excusable neglect; courts prefer deciding cases on the merits)
- Madill v. Rivercrest Cmty. Ass’n, Inc., 273 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (attorney oversight may be excusable neglect; denial of enlargement of time abused discretion)
- Oshana v. Lopiano, 314 So. 3d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (once a colorable entitlement to relief under rule 1.540(b) is raised, discretion requires holding an evidentiary hearing)