Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Horowitch
107 So. 3d 362
| Fla. | 2013

Background

  • Florida Supreme Court answers certified questions about FDUTPA attorney’s fees, offer of judgment, and related Florida law.
  • Horowitch contracted in 2004 with Diamond Aircraft for a jet aircraft; dispute includes contract, covenants, and a FDUTPA claim in Florida federal court.
  • District court applied Florida law to contract claims; Arizona law applied to Horowitch’s FDUTPA claim and the deceptive practices claim.
  • Diamond sought attorney’s fees under FDUTPA § 501.2105 and under Florida’s offer-of-judgment statute § 768.79; district court denied both.
  • Eleventh Circuit certified four questions to Florida Supreme Court; issues concern fee entitlement and scope, and applicability of 768.79 and Rule 1.442.
  • Florida Supreme Court held: (i) prevailing defendant may recover fees when plaintiff invoked FDUTPA and Diamond prevailed; (ii) fee period ends when FDUTPA is held inapplicable; (iii) § 768.79 does not apply to actions seeking both damages and equitable relief, with no merit exception; (iv) offer of judgment must strictly comply with Rule 1.442; general offers are not valid if they fail to address attorney’s fees.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
FDUTPA fees when other law governs Horowitch invoked FDUTPA and Diamond prevailed on that claim. Fees should be available under FDUTPA notwithstanding outcome on substantive law. Affirmative: FDUTPA fees awarded where plaintiff invoked FDUTPA and defendant prevailed.
Scope of FDUTPA fees Fees should cover all FDUTPA-related litigation regardless of later law-gov transition. Fees should extend only to the period before FDUTPA was found inapplicable. Fees payable for the period up to the district court’s FDUTPA inapplicability ruling.
Applicability of 768.79 to mixed monetary/equitable claims General offer of judgment could cover both monetary and nonmonetary relief. 768.79 should apply when monetary relief is sought, with no exception for equity. Negative: 768.79 does not apply to actions seeking both damages and equitable relief, and no merit-based exception exists.
Validity of offers of judgment under Rule 1.442 when fees not specified Offers may still be broad enough to cover attorney’s fees when claims include fees. Strict compliance requires explicit statement about attorney’s fees and whether they are part of the claim. Negative: Diamond Aircraft’s offer failed strict Rule 1.442 requirements; offer invalid.

Key Cases Cited

  • Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft, Indus., Inc., 645 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2011) (certified questions regarding FDUTPA fees and offer mechanics; appellate discussion relied upon for fee construction)
  • Brown v. Gardens by the Sea South Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 424 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (FDUTPA attorney’s fees when plaintiff invoked act and ultimately did not apply)
  • Rustic Village, Inc. v. Friedman, 417 So.2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (defendant prevailing under FDUTPA may recover fees even if FDUTPA does not apply)
  • Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601 (9th Cir. 2010) (foreign-fee-sources aided by cross-jurisdictional fee recovery logic)
  • Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Equestrian Club Estates Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 22 So.3d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (strict construction; general offers do not govern if only monetary relief contemplated)
  • Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Family Enters., 66 So.3d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (general offers of judgment do not apply where damages and nonmonetary relief are sought)
  • Southeast Floating Docks, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 82 So.3d 73 (Fla. 2012) (offer-of-judgment framework in context of choice of law and substantive application)
  • Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2007) (strict construction principle for rule 1.442 and section 768.79)
  • Bennett v. American Learning Systems of Boca Delray, Inc., 857 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (offer of settlement includes attorney’s fees when not expressly claimed; later revised by Campbell)
  • Heindel v. Southside Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 476 So.2d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (interpretation of 501.2105 related to hours reasonably expended on FDUTPA action)
  • Mandel v. Decorator’s Mart, Inc., 965 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (allocation of attorney’s fees between FDUTPA and non-FDUTPA claims)
  • National Indemnity Co. v. Consol. Ins. Servs., 778 So.2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (nonmonetary relief and fee considerations under FDUTPA framework)
  • Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft, Indus., Inc., 645 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2011) (centerpiece citation for FDUTPA fee questions in this matter)
Read the full case