Christian Cacciamani v. Target Corporation
662 F. App'x 759
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Christian and Nora Cacciamani sued Target after an in-store accident; district court granted summary judgment for Target and this Court affirmed.
- Target served pre-suit settlement offers under Fla. Stat. § 768.79: $44,000 to Christian (release stating he was not a Medicare beneficiary and that no future medical treatment was needed) and $1,000 to Nora (with a confidentiality clause and attorney-fee provision).
- Target moved for attorney’s fees under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 after judgment of no liability; the district court awarded fees and costs and denied the Cacciamanis’ motion for reconsideration.
- Christian argued the release language (no further medical treatment needed) was fraudulent/against public policy and thus the offer lacked good faith; Nora contended the confidentiality clause was ambiguous and justified rejection.
- The district court found Target made its offers in good faith based on information available when offers were made, and that Nora’s confidentiality provision was not ambiguous; it awarded $76,401.50 in fees plus costs.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Target was entitled to attorney’s fees under § 768.79 and remanded to determine the total amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court’s prior opinion barred Target’s fee request (law-of-the-case/mandate) | Prior opinion denying Target’s fee motion here in appellate filing prevents district court award | Prior opinion expressly did not address district-court fee issue; district court free to decide | Prior opinion did not decide fees; law-of-the-case/mandate do not bar district court award |
| Whether Target’s $44,000 offer to Christian was made in good faith under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 | Christian: release language requiring no further treatment was fraudulent/contrary to public policy; Target knew he had ongoing care → bad faith | Target: offer based on information available then; no evidence Target knew of ongoing treatment; reasonable foundation for offer | District court did not clearly err; Target acted in good faith; entitlement to fees under § 768.79 upheld |
| Whether Nora’s $1,000 offer was unenforceable because confidentiality clause was ambiguous | Nora: confidentiality language ambiguous, preventing an informed decision and justifying rejection | Target: confidentiality provision is specific, immediately followed by monetary terms, and satisfies Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 | Confidentiality clause was not impermissibly vague; offer satisfied Rule 1.442; district court correctly enforced it |
| Scope of appellate review and standard for fee entitlement | N/A (arguments embedded in other issues) | N/A | Court applied de novo review to law-of-the-case and contract construction; clear-error review to good-faith finding |
Key Cases Cited
- McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2002) (good-faith requirement for offers under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 is judged by information known to offeror)
- Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Inst. of London Underwriters, 430 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2005) (law-of-the-case and mandate-rule principles)
- United States v. Jordan, 429 F.3d 1032 (11th Cir. 2005) (law-of-the-case bars relitigation of issues decided on prior appeal)
- Waters v. Int’l Precious Metals Corp., 237 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2001) (de novo review of settlement agreement construction)
- TGI Friday’s, Inc. v. Dvorak, 663 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1995) (lack of good faith is sole basis to disallow entitlement to fees under § 768.79)
- Alamo Fin., L.P. v. Mazoff, 112 So. 3d 626 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (a settlement proposal must be sufficiently clear to allow informed decision under Rule 1.442)