17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1116a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1711RODEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Motion to dismiss or abate PIP suit refiled after voluntary dismissal, on ground that medical provider has not paid sanctions entered against its prior counsel in prior case — Itemization of insurer’s claim and payments made required
DIMENSIONAL IMAGING, INC, a Florida Corporation (assignee of Rodeheaver, Sharon), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County. Case No. 2010 SC 000077 NC. June 28, 2010. Emanuel LoGalbo, Jr., Judge.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
This cause came before the court on June 15, 2010 on Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification, and the court having heard argument and being advised in the premises finds as follows:
Factual Background:
This is a PIP case that was previously filed and voluntarily dismissed by another law firm. During the course of the prior case, this court imposed sanctions against the law firm, but expressly held that the award was not against the client or the attorneys who subsequently assumed handling of the case. Defendant has moved to dismiss and/or abate the current lawsuit under F.R.C.P. 1420 asserting that the Plaintiff must first pay to the Defendant the $2,809.35 sanction award (plus interest) against its prior attorneys before being able to further pursue the re-filed case. Plaintiff responds that Plaintiff may only be held responsible for properly “taxable costs” incurred in the litigation and may not be charged to pay sanctions which were levied against its prior attorneys personally. Additionally, it has now been disclosed by the Defendant that the prior law firm may actually have paid the sanctions award and that the Defendant’s motion may be incorrect. This court has been asked to clarify and determine what “taxable costs,” if any, are payable by the Plaintiff in order to maintain the re-filed action.1
Conclusions of Law:
As the court and Plaintiff’s counsel do not have the benefit of the itemized breakdown of the Defendant’s claim for $2,809.35, the court hereby orders that by no later than June 22, 2010 the Defendant shall provide the court and Plaintiff’s current counsel with the following:
1) An itemization and description of the fees and expenses comprising the $2,809.35 claimed by the Defendant, and
2) An itemization of any payments made to the Defendant towards the sanctions and costs in question (including the date of each payment and payment amount).
Should the above filing fail to enable the parties to resolve this matter, the court will reconvene the hearing upon proper scheduling and notice.
__________________
1This re-filed case is currently before the Honorable Phyllis Galen. However, because the clarification request required an examination and interpretation of this court’s prior sanctions order (which entailed evidentiary hearings conducted by this court), Judge Galen has referred the limited clarification question to this division.
