197 So. 3d 77
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Sept. 3, 2013 Ochoa served a proposal for settlement under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 offering $100,000; rule 1.442(f)(1) requires written acceptance within 30 days or the proposal is deemed rejected.
- Ochoa’s proposal stated it would be withdrawn if not accepted within 30 days.
- On Oct. 2, 2013 (one day before the 30-day acceptance period expired) Koppel filed a motion under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090 to enlarge the time to respond, citing need to evaluate new medical discovery.
- A hearing was set for Dec. 2, 2013; the court requested additional authorities and did not rule at the hearing. On Dec. 3, 2013 Koppel served a notice purporting to accept the proposal.
- On Dec. 5, 2013 the court denied Koppel’s enlargement motion; Ochoa moved to strike the acceptance as untimely. The trial court denied the motion to strike, enforced the settlement, and entered final judgment dismissing Ochoa’s case.
- Ochoa appealed, arguing that filing a rule 1.090 motion does not toll the 30-day acceptance period under rule 1.442 and that Koppel’s acceptance was therefore untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a motion under rule 1.090 to enlarge time to accept a rule 1.442 proposal tolls the 30-day acceptance period | Ochoa: Filing a motion does not toll the hard 30-day deadline in rule 1.442(f)(1); acceptance must occur within 30 days unless court orders extension before expiration | Koppel: Filing the rule 1.090 enlargement motion tolled the 30-day period until the court decided the motion (relying on Goldy) | The court held filing a rule 1.090 motion does not automatically toll the 30-day acceptance period; rule 1.442 sets a hard deadline and any extension requires a court order before expiration |
Key Cases Cited
- Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2006) (standard of de novo review for construction of rules)
- Audiffred v. Arnold, 161 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 2015) (procedures governing proposals for settlement)
- Goldy v. Corbett Cranes Servs., Inc., 692 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (held filing motion to enlarge time tolled 30-day acceptance period)
- Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1999) (court may not add words to statutes/rules)
- Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1992) (rule 1.090 provides discretion to extend deadlines)
- Three Lions Constr., Inc. v. The Namm Grp., Inc., 183 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (rejected automatic tolling where movant did not obtain a hearing before expiration)