243 So. 3d 886
Fla.2018Background
- On Sept 3, 2013 Ochoa served Koppel a proposal for settlement under §768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 offering $100,000; rule 1.442(f)(1) deems a proposal rejected if not accepted within 30 days.
- On Oct 2, 2013 (one day before the 30‑day expiration) Koppel filed a motion under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090 to enlarge time to respond, citing newly produced medical evidence and unfinished discovery; the motion was set for hearing Dec 2.
- The trial court did not rule at the Dec 2 hearing, requested additional authorities, and ultimately denied the enlargement on Dec 5.
- Koppel served written notice of acceptance on Dec 3 (after filing the motion but before the denial); the trial court held the filing of the motion tolled the 30‑day period, enforced the settlement, and entered final judgment dismissing Ochoa’s suit.
- The Second District reversed, concluding the plain text of rules 1.090 and 1.442 does not provide automatic tolling upon filing a motion to enlarge; this Court approved the Second District and disapproved the Fifth District’s decision in Goldy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ochoa) | Defendant's Argument (Koppel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does filing a Rule 1.090 motion to enlarge time automatically toll the 30‑day acceptance period for a Rule 1.442/§768.79 proposal until the motion is decided? | The rules are unambiguous and do not permit tolling by mere filing; acceptance period runs unless court grants enlargement. | Filing the motion tolled the deadline under Goldy; tolling remains in effect until the court rules, so an acceptance served while the motion is pending is timely. | The Court held filing a motion to enlarge does not automatically toll the 30‑day acceptance period; a court must grant an enlargement for extra time to run. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldy v. Corbett Cranes Servs., Inc., 692 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (held filing a motion to enlarge tolled the responsive period until the motion was decided)
- Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1992) (motion filed within deadline sufficed to avoid dismissal for failure to serve process)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 352 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (motion to extend substitution period filed within deadline prevented automatic dismissal)
- Donohoe v. Starmed Staffing, Inc., 743 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (motion to enlarge did not toll acceptance period where motion was not heard before expiration)
- Three Lions Constr., Inc. v. Namm Group, Inc., 183 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (motion for extension ineffective to toll acceptance period absent pre‑expiration hearing or agreement)
- Pratt v. Weiss, 161 So. 3d 1268 (Fla. 2015) (de novo review applies to interpretation of Rule 1.442)