Infiniti Employment Solutions, Inc. v. MS Liquidators of Arizona, LLC
204 So. 3d 550
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Infiniti Employment Solutions provided temporary staffing to MS Liquidators and sent nine uncontested invoices totaling $16,828 that MS Liquidators did not pay.
- Infiniti sued for breach of contract, account stated, open account, and quantum meruit; MS Liquidators pleaded affirmative defenses including lack of essential terms, lack of consideration, and a setoff.
- Infiniti filed two motions under section 57.105 seeking attorney’s fees and delay damages, arguing those defenses were unsupported by material facts or law; Infiniti gave the statutory 21‑day warning window to withdraw the defenses.
- On the morning of trial MS Liquidators consented to a judgment for the debt and contractual attorney’s fees; Infiniti then sought to enforce its earlier 57.105 motions post‑judgment.
- The trial court orally denied Infiniti’s 57.105 requests, finding at least one defense (lack of essential terms) had some merit and applying a pre‑1999 standard requiring a defense to be entirely baseless.
- The Fifth District reversed in part, holding the trial court applied the wrong standard and directing a hearing to determine when the three defenses became unsupported and to award 57.105 fees and any delay damages, potentially against counsel or Sherman personally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred denying 57.105 fees by applying pre‑1999 "entirely baseless" standard | Infiniti: defenses (setoff, lack of consideration, lack of essential terms) were unsupported by material facts or law and thus sanctionable under current 57.105 | MS Liquidators: at least one defense (lack of essential terms) had merit, so sanctions inappropriate; appeal is proper remedy if court erred | Reversed: trial court used wrong standard; remand to apply current 57.105 (knew or should have known defenses lacked factual or legal support) | |
| Whether setoff defense was supported by the record | Infiniti: discovery and Sherman’s deposition showed no factual basis for setoff | MS Liquidators: asserted setoff initially as affirmative defense | Held: record shows setoff lacked support; should be evaluated for sanctions and fees | > |
| Whether MS Liquidators’ stipulation to a valid contract affected merits of lack‑of‑terms/consideration defenses | Infiniti: joint pretrial statement admitted a valid, binding contract, undermining those defenses | MS Liquidators: maintained defenses earlier in litigation despite stipulation | Held: Stipulation and discovery indicated defenses became unsupported before trial; court must determine timing for sanctions | |
| Whether fees/damages can be assessed against counsel or owner personally | Infiniti: sought fees against opposing counsel and Sherman individually under expanded definition of “party” in 57.105 | MS Liquidators: opposed personal assessment | Held: Court directed trial court to consider assessing fees/delay damages against counsel and Sherman if appropriate (no disposition on personal liability made by appellate court) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bionetics Corp. v. Kenniasty, 69 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 2011) (discusses 57.105’s purpose and amendments to curb frivolous litigation)
- Airtran Airways, Inc. v. Avaero Noise Reduction Joint Venture, 858 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (explains current 57.105 standard and evaluation of when defenses became unsupported)
- Mullins v. Kennelly, 847 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (notes pre‑1999 57.105 standard requiring complete absence of justiciable issue)
- Korte v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 64 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (affirms award of attorney’s fees and delay damages under 57.105)
- Zweibach v. Gordimer, 884 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (addresses expanded definition of “party” for assessing 57.105 sanctions)