14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 588b
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Justiciable issues — Time for response to motion for section 57.105 attorney’s fees is extended until after taking of depositions is concluded where documents on which motion for fees is based are inconsistent and could create confusion
MARK T. MACHUGA, D.C., P.A., as Assignee of Charles Andre, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation authorized and doing business in the State of Florida, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County. Case No. 05-SC-002074. December 6, 2006. John Sloop, Judge. Counsel: Lee M. Jacobson, Law Offices of Michael B. Brehne, P.A., Maitland, for Plaintiff. Dale T. Gobel, de Beaubien, Knight, Simmons, Mantzaris & Neal, LLP, Orlando, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 57.105 SANCTIONS
THIS CAUSE came on for hearing November 28, 2006 on Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion for 57.105 Sanctions, the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as follows.
1. Plaintiff has moved this Court requesting an extension of time to respond to Defendant’s Motion for 57.106 Sanctions.
2. Defendant has alleged that Plaintiff knew or should have known that the dates of service, alleged in the Bill of Particulars were paid timely.
3. Defendant supports this motion by attaching a copy of payment stubs indicating payment was made for “DOS 11-18-03 thru 12-31-03.”
4. However, Defendant has failed to inform the reader of the motion that there exists an additional payment stub, check and “AutoPay” sheet that is specific to “d.o.s. 12/17/03-12/24/03.”
5. These two documents are, at best, inconsistent and can conceivably create confusion.
6. Plaintiff has yet to be afforded the luxury of taking a deposition of Defendant’s representatives to get an explanation of which of the two payment stubs is for the date of service in question.
7. In the interests of fairness and justice, Plaintiff should be afforded this opportunity so that Plaintiff’s attorney may adequately advise the Plaintiff of its exposure to sanctions, if any.
8. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension to Respond to Defendant’s Motion for 57.3105 sanctions is GRANTED.
9. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the conclusion of the depositions of the six remaining individuals identified in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Depositions to respond to Defendant’s Motion for 57.105 Sanctions.
