Hillsboro Management, LLC v. Pagono
112 So. 3d 620
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Hillsboro appeals a final judgment for Pagono (as personal representative) on negligence and statutory rights claims, including punitive damages.
- A juror (R.F.) failed to disclose substantial litigation history during voir dire, which Hillsboro contends tainted the verdict.
- Trial court denied a new trial and declined to conduct a juror interview.
- Hillsboro sought a juror interview and new trial based on material nondisclosure and its impact on jury impartiality.
- The court applied De La Rosa v. Zequeira factors and Sterling to require a juror interview; this appeal follows.
- Court indicates remand for juror interview and reconsideration of the new-trial motion, with other issues reserved for later review
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror nondisclosure warrants a new trial. | Hillsboro asserts material, non-disclosed litigation history affected impartiality. | Pagono contends disclosures were insufficiently connected to case or were not material. | Remand for juror interview and reconsideration of new trial |
| Materiality of juror’s litigation history. | History was substantial and relevant to honesty/impartiality. | Not all prior litigation is per se material; connections to case unclear. | Materiality weighed with total circumstances; require interview |
| Concealment of information during voir dire. | Juror’s responses were misleading; concealment occurred. | Concealment may be non-intentional or ambiguous. | Concealment shown; interview appropriate |
| Need for a juror interview under De La Rosa/Roberts framework. | Interview necessary to assess nondisclosure impact. | Interview not mandated if disclosure not material. | Court must conduct juror interview and rehear the motion |
| Impact of improper juror interview denial on remaining issues. | Remand may affect residual issues after new trial. | Premature to resolve other issues until juror interview and new trial decision. | Premature to address residual issues; hold in abeyance |
Key Cases Cited
- De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1995) (three-part test for juror nondisclosure materiality; diligence; concealment)
- Roberts ex rel. Estate of Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So.2d 334 (Fla. 2002) (materiality not strictly defined; non-per se material; use totality of factors)
- Sterling v. Feldbaum, 980 So.2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reverses denial of new trial when voir dire nondisclosure probable; permits interviews)
- Gamsen v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 68 So.3d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (ambiguity in juror responses; failure to clarify can permit interview)
- Leavitt v. Krogen, 752 So.2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (materiality depends on facts and circumstances; no bright-line test)
- Beyel Bros., Inc. v. Lemenze, 720 So.2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (non-disclosure rules; relevance to juror demeanor and fitness)