ESJ JI OPERATIONS, LLC v. TODD DOMECK
314 So.3d 410
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2020Background
- Appellants ESJ JI Operations, LLC and ESJ JI Leasehold, LLC rejected two timely proposals for settlement under Fla. Stat. § 768.79; the trial court awarded attorney’s fees and costs to appellee Todd Domeck.
- Appellants appealed, claiming procedural due process violations at the fee-entitlement stage (they argued they were denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard).
- The trial judge, who had presided over the underlying litigation, held a hearing on entitlement with reasonable advance notice, permitted oral argument, allowed additional written submissions, and held a subsequent non‑evidentiary hearing.
- Parties stipulated to the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours; the primary disputes were entitlement to fees and whether the settlement proposals were made in good faith.
- The appellate court applied flexible due-process principles (Mathews balancing) and found the record showed no curtailment of appellants’ presentations.
- The court affirmed the fee award, concluding no abuse of discretion on good-faith or procedure grounds and rejecting a requirement for multiple evidentiary hearings per Miccosukee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants were deprived of procedural due process at the fee-entitlement hearing | Appellants: lacked a meaningful opportunity to be heard; procedures were insufficient | Domeck: parties received reasonable notice and full opportunity (oral and written); judge familiar with case | Court: due process satisfied—notice and meaningful opportunity provided; affirmed |
| Whether the settlement proposals were made in good faith / whether the court abused its discretion in awarding fees | Appellants: offers were not made in good faith, so fees unjustified | Domeck: offeree bears burden to prove lack of good faith; record supports court’s discretionary finding | Court: no abuse of discretion; offers deemed made in good faith; affirmed |
| Whether Miccosukee requires multiple evidentiary hearings on fee entitlement | Appellants: Miccosukee purportedly requires additional evidentiary hearings | Domeck: Miccosukee does not mandate multiple evidentiary hearings; procedures here were adequate | Court: summarily rejected that reading of Miccosukee; multiple evidentiary hearings not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (due process requires opportunity to be heard)
- Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U.S. 394 (judgment bound only after opportunity to be heard)
- Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886 (due process is flexible)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due process requires protections appropriate to context)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Hadley v. Dep’t of Admin., 411 So. 2d 184 (procedural due process standards in Florida)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (abuse of discretion standard explanation)
- Ruiz v. Policlinica Metropolitana, 260 So. 3d 1081 (offeree bears burden to show lack of good faith)
- Matrisciani v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 298 So. 3d 53 (standard of review for good-faith determination)
- Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Lewis Tein P.L., 277 So. 3d 299 (addressed—court rejected that it required multiple evidentiary hearings)