Latam Investments, LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16373
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Holland & Knight represented Golden Dawn Corporation and Markwood Investments in a federal diversity suit and obtained a partial final judgment.
- Post-judgment, Holland & Knight attempted to collect via subpoenas and writs of garnishment; Neves filed for bankruptcy, undermining subject matter jurisdiction.
- LatAm Investments filed an abuse of process claim against Holland & Knight arising from those post-judgment actions.
- Trial court dismissed LatAm’s complaint with prejudice, holding the actions were protected by the litigation privilege.
- LatAm appealed, arguing the privilege does not apply to abuse-of-process claims and criticizing dismissal with prejudice.
- Court held the litigation privilege applies to acts during and related to judicial proceedings, even where subject matter jurisdiction was later determined lacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the litigation privilege apply to abuse of process claims? | LatAm contends privilege does not cover abuse of process. | Holland & Knight argues privilege bars abuse-of-process claim when acts occur during proceedings. | Yes, privilege applies. |
| Does applying the privilege abolish the abuse-of-process claim? | LatAm argues it eliminates any abuse-of-process remedy. | Holland & Knight contends privilege merely bars the specific claim for acts within proceedings. | No; privilege does not eliminate the claim when based on outside or unrelated acts. |
| Does lack of subject matter jurisdiction preclude application of the privilege? | LatAm asserts jurisdictional defect negates privilege protections. | Holland & Knight maintains privilege applies regardless of later jurisdictional findings. | No; jurisdictional defect does not wipe out privilege for proceedings conducted under misapprehension of jurisdiction. |
| Was dismissal with prejudice on a motion to dismiss appropriate given privilege? | LatAm argues discovery should be allowed; due process requires it. | Holland & Knight argues privilege can be decided on a motion to dismiss and discovery is unnecessary at that stage. | Yes; dismissal with prejudice was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Levin v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1994) (absolute immunity for acts during judicial proceedings)
- Echevarria v. Cole, 950 So.2d 380 (Fla. 2007) (privilege applies to all causes of action)
- Am. Nat’l Title & Escrow of Fla. v. Guarantee Title & Trust Co., 748 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (summary judgment affirmed on basis of absolute immunity)
- Willy v. Coastal Corp., 915 F.2d 965 (5th Cir. 1990) (sanctions survive lack of subject matter jurisdiction; privilege rooted in court's inherent authority)
- Olson v. Johnson, 961 So.2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (privilege not to preclude claims based on pre- or unrelated actions)
- Montejo v. Martin Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 935 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (false imprisonment claim not barred when acts outside proceedings)
- Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482 (Fla.1956) (motion to dismiss can test sufficiency where facts alleged suffice)