Mintz Truppman, P.A., etc. v. Cozen O'Connor, PLC, 346 So.3d 577

Background

Daphne Query sued Lexington Insurance for home water-damage; Mintz Truppman, P.A. (Mintz) represented Query; Lexington was represented by Cozen O’Connor (Cozen).
The federal district court approved a settlement and expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and determine attorneys’ fees.
When fee resolution failed at mediation, Mintz sought fees from Lexington, calculating a lodestar and requesting a contingency multiplier for a total demand of roughly $828,056.
Lexington and Cozen filed Query’s initial settlement demand with the federal court record; Mintz then sued them in Florida state court alleging violations of mediation confidentiality and related claims.
The circuit court denied Lexington’s and Cozen’s motions to dismiss; the Third District Court of Appeal granted a writ of prohibition, holding collateral estoppel barred Mintz’s claims and concluding the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.
The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Third District’s prohibition writ as improperly used to undo a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss based on an affirmative defense, and remanded for further consideration of certiorari arguments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mintz)	Defendant's Argument (Lexington/Cozen)	Held
Whether a writ of prohibition was proper to block the circuit court from adjudicating Mintz’s state claims after denial of a motion to dismiss based on collateral estoppel	Prohibition is improper; circuit court had jurisdiction to hear Mintz’s mediation-confidentiality claims	Prohibition proper because collateral estoppel resolved the controlling issue in federal court, so the circuit court lacked jurisdiction	Writ of prohibition was improperly used; prohibition is preventive, not corrective, and may not be used to undo a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on an affirmative defense — Third DCA decision quashed
Whether collateral estoppel barred Mintz’s claims because the issue was already decided in the federal action	Collateral estoppel does not preclude Mintz’s state claims; circuit court should resolve	Collateral estoppel applied; the four elements were met in the federal proceeding	Florida Supreme Court did not decide the merits of collateral estoppel; remanded to Third DCA to address certiorari and related arguments
Whether Mintz had statutory standing as a "party" to invoke remedies under Florida’s mediation confidentiality statute	Mintz contends it can seek remedies for mediation confidentiality breaches as alleged	Cozen argues Mintz was not a mediation "party" and thus lacks statutory remedy; Lexington asserts immunity for filing documents in a judicial proceeding	Court did not resolve these merits issues; remanded for further appellate consideration

Key Cases Cited

Cozen O’Connor, PLC v. Mintz Truppman, P.A., 306 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (district court decision issuing writ of prohibition on collateral estoppel grounds)
English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977) (explaining prohibition is a preventive, not corrective, writ)
Nicoll v. Baker, 668 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1996) (permitting prohibition where subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking)
State ex rel. McKenzie v. Willis, 310 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1975) (prohibition to protect tribunal’s exclusive statutory jurisdiction)
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987) (standards for extraordinary writs and review of nonfinal orders)
Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) (absolute immunity for acts during judicial proceedings)
Baxas Howell Mobley, Inc. v. BP Oil Co., 630 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (elements of collateral estoppel)
Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) (lodestar and contingency risk factor for attorney’s fees)
Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990) (permitting fee multipliers where success was unlikely)