258 So. 3d 545
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Pritchard retired from Gold Coast after a separation agreement and received over $1 million from an equity plan.
- After Reyes Group later negotiated to buy Gold Coast, Pritchard sued Gold Coast, holding companies, and officers claiming he would not have retired had he known about prior acquisition negotiations.
- In July 2017 Pritchard moved to amend his complaint to add a punitive damages claim under Fla. Stat. § 768.72, attaching a detailed table of record evidence and sworn declarations.
- The trial court held two hearings, requested supplemental memoranda, and then granted leave to amend, finding a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages.
- Petitioners sought certiorari relief, arguing the trial court failed to follow the procedural requirements of § 768.72 and thus should be quashed.
- The appellate court reviewed only whether the trial court complied with § 768.72’s procedural requirements and whether it applied the correct law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with § 768.72 procedural requirements before granting leave to add punitive damages | Pritchard: he provided a reasonable evidentiary basis via motion, exhibits, and declarations | Petitioners: court failed to follow § 768.72 and improperly allowed punitive claim and attendant financial discovery | Court: trial court complied with § 768.72 (sufficient proffer, hearings, supplemental briefing); leave to amend stands |
| Whether certiorari relief is available to challenge the order granting leave to amend for punitive damages | Pritchard: not directly argued; procedural posture supports review because punitive claim triggers otherwise-protected discovery | Petitioners: sought certiorari arguing irreparable statutory injury | Court: certiorari jurisdiction exists when order permits punitive claim because appellate relief may be inadequate, but relief is limited to review of legal/procedural errors only; here no procedural/legal error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995) (plaintiff must show a reasonable evidentiary basis before punitive damages allowed)
- Nieves v. Viera, 150 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (certiorari framework for punitive-damages leave orders)
- TRG Desert Inn Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky, 194 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (scope of review limited to procedural compliance and correct law; certiorari appropriate for punitive-damages leave orders)
- Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011) (material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal is jurisdictional for certiorari)
- Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe, 44 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (review limited to procedural compliance under § 768.72)
- SAP Am., Inc. v. Royal Flowers, Inc., 187 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (court may not reweigh sufficiency of evidence on certiorari review)