TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, INC., Pеtitioner, v. CHERELLE DUKES, Respondent.
No. 1D18-2426
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
May 16, 2019
OSTERHAUS, J.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.
Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Inc. seeks certiorari review of an order granting Cherelle Dukes‘s motion to assert a punitive damages claim against it in her defamation suit. TMH argues that the order
I.
Ms. Dukes worked for TMH as a patient care assistant in the emergency room until she resignеd in lieu of formal termination in September 2015. After resigning, she sued TMH for whistleblower retaliation and defamation. Ms. Dukes based her defamation claim on the conduct of an emergency room supervisor. The supervisor allegedly told co-workers that Ms. Dukes had bеen terminated for “stealing,” and not that Ms. Dukes had resigned after being confronted about making personal long-distance calls using TMH‘s tеlephone codes.
In October 2018, Ms. Dukes filed a motion to amend her defamation count against TMH to assert a punitive damаges claim. She attached an amended complaint alleging that the emergency room supervisor “as agent to a рrincipal/employer, published caused to be published or allowed to be published false statements about Plaintiff to third parties.” At a subsequent hearing, Ms. Dukes claimed that her motion should be granted because she had been defamed by the “director” of TMH‘s еmergency room. TMH argued that the motion should be denied because Ms. Dukes didn‘t claim or proffer evidence that either TMH or its corporate management participated or condoned the alleged defamation. TMH argued that
you cannot equate the director of the emergency room, which is Ms. Dukes’ second-level supervisor, to the board of directors or thе CEO, which is what the case law holds. [To prevail under the statute,] [y]ou have to have the employee/alleged bad actоr in addition to ratification by the corporation.
The court ultimately granted Ms. Dukes‘s motion to amend the complaint and add а punitive damages claim. TMH then timely filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to quash the trial court‘s order.
II.
Certiorari reliеf is available where the procedural requirements of the punitive damages statute aren‘t followed. Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995); Fetlar, LLC v. Suarez, 230 So. 3d 97, 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). A defendant has a substantive legal right not to be subject to punitive damages claims if there is no reasonable basis for recovery. Globe Newspaper Co., 658 So. 2d at 519. Our standard of review is de novo. Wayne Frier Home Center of Pensacola, Inc. v. Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P., 16 So. 3d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
A plaintiff‘s ability to bring a punitive damages claim in a civil action in Florida is governed by
(a) The employer, principal, corporation, or other legal entity actively and knowingly рarticipated in such conduct;
(b) The officers, directors, or managers of the employer, principal, corporation, or other legal entity knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to such conduct; or
(c) The employer, principal, corporation, or other legal entity engaged in conduct that constituted gross negligence and that contributed to the lоss, damages, or injury suffered by the claimant.
In this case, Ms. Dukes sought to add a punitive damages claim against TMH based upon the conduсt of the “director” of the emergency room. Ms. Dukes argued that her motion should be granted because
What is missing from Ms. Dukes‘s motion and proffer, however, is an allegаtion or evidence that corporate management knowingly condoned, ratified or consented to the alleged misconduct. Ms. Dukes didn‘t allege that the emergency room employee had a role in corporate management. Nor did shе allege or provide evidence that corporate management knew about the alleged defamatory conduct by its emergency room director. On this basis, TMH argues that Ms. Dukes‘s punitive damages claim could not go forward in the absence of сlaiming or providing evidence that TMH‘s corporate management “knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to [the] conduct,” as required by
This case is similar to the Third District‘s opinion in Fetlar, LLC v. Suarez. There, plaintiffs also sought to add punitive damages claims against corporate dеfendants based upon allegations of misconduct by employees—construction managers, superintendents, and workers—“who were not, on the record before us, officers or managing members of the . . . companies.” Fetlar, LLC, 230 So. 3d at 100. The court found these allegatiоns against non-management personnel to be contrary to the plain language of
Similarly, here, Ms. Dukes‘s motion failed to meet
III.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the order granting leave to amend the complaint to include a claim for punitive damages.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
ROWE and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under
S. Austin Cattani and Brandice D. Dickson of Pennington, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
Marie A. Mattox of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for Respondent.