21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 976a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2109DIKEInsurance — Confession of judgment — Where, despite sending demand letter demanding payment of $12,950, provider filed jurisdictional statement stating claim did not exceed $99.99 in order to pay lowest available filing fee, and insurer thereafter tendered $99.99 to provider and filed confession of judgment, insurer made valid confession of judgment — Provider’s objection to confession of judgment is overruled, and motion to amend complaint to increase amount at issue is denied — Provider’s strategic decision to claim that lesser amount was in issue is not tantamount to fraud or sham
DOUGLAS PRICE, P.A., d/b/a FLORIDA PAIN, TRAUMA & INJURY CLINIC, a/a/o Dikenson Chery, Plaintiff, vs. MGA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 13-CC-032481, Division H. May 9, 2014. Christopher Nash, Judge. Counsel: Terrence Swartz, Nicholas Law Group, PLLC, Tampa, for Plaintiff. Steven T. Sock, Dutton Law Group, Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TODEFENDANT’S CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, DENYINGPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMENDCOMPLAINT, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DENYINGDEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
THIS MATTER came before the Court for hearing on the following matters:
1. Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Notice of Confession of Judgment dated February 20, 2014;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint dated February 26, 2014;
3. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Untimely Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and for Entry of Final Judgment dated March 20, 2014; and
4. Defendant’s Notice of Filing and Request for Judicial Notice of Materials Supporting Plaintiff’s Complaint to be a Sham Pleading dated March 20, 2014.Factual and Procedural Background
1. On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff sent defendant a 30 day demand letter under §627.736(10), Fla. Stat. The letter asserted that Plaintiff’s assignor had treated with Plaintiff between June 10, 2013 and September 16, 2013. The letter asserted that $16,187.74 had been billed and that no amount had been paid. The letter demanded payment of $12,950.19 plus $6.51 in postal costs. See Statement of Claim, Exhibit B.
2. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on December 4, 2013, seeking payment of an amount less than $99.99. See Statement of Claim, paragraph 1.
3. On January 16, 2014, Defendant tendered $99.99 to Plaintiff and filed a Confession of Judgment.
4. On February 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed an objection to Defendant’s Confession of Judgment.
5. On February 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, seeking to change the amount at issue in the case to an amount less than $2,499.99.
6. On March 20, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Untimely Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and for Entry of Final Judgment and a Notice of Filing and Request for Judicial Notice of Materials Supporting Plaintiff’s Complaint to be a Sham Pleading.Legal Analysis and Conclusion
Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking to recover the unpaid amount of its October 15, 2013 demand. When it did so, and pursuant to Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Administrative Order S-2013-043, paragraph 4, Plaintiff included a jurisdictional statement, which stated “this claim does not exceed $99.99, exclusive of costs, interest and attorneys’ fees.” Thus, pursuant to §34.041(1)(a)(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff paid a filing fee of $50.001. At the hearing in this matter, counsel for Plaintiff candidly conceded that at the outset of this litigation, Plaintiff was unsure of the amount it was entitled to recover. It filed the jurisdictional statement at issue in order to pay the lowest available filing fee.
Shortly thereafter, Defendant chose not to defend its position in this case, tendered $99.99 to Plaintiff, and filed a Confession of Judgment, conceding Plaintiff’s right to recover reasonable fees and costs. See, Wollard v. Lloyd’s & Co. of Lloyd’s, 439 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1983). Under the circumstances in this case, the Court finds that Defendant made a valid confession of judgment by paying the maximum jurisdictional amount claimed by Plaintiff
Defendant asserts that in claiming a jurisdictional amount of $99.99 or less, despite the actual amount it hoped to recover, Plaintiff’s pleading is a sham, subjecting Plaintiff’s Complaint to being stricken. This Court disagrees with Defendant’s analysis. In any number of cases, plaintiffs voluntarily reduce the amounts of claims. Plaintiffs may do so in order to gain access to Small Claims Court, where rules of procedure are expedited, or in order to gain access to County Court instead of Circuit Court, where cases may proceed in a more abbreviated or advanced manner. Plaintiffs may also voluntarily reduce the amount claimed in order to advance and risk less out-of-pocket costs. This Court does not believe such strategic decisions are tantamount to fraud or sham. However, when a plaintiff voluntarily reduces the amount of its claim, it must accept both the benefits and burdens of such a strategic decision. In this case, the Plaintiff subjected itself to the risk that Defendant would abandon its defense, confess judgment and render $99.99 to Plaintiff.Conclusion
1. Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Confession of Judgment is Overruled.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is Denied.
3. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Untimely Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and for Entry of Final Judgment is Granted as to Defendant’s request for entry of final judgment.
4. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice of Materials Supporting Plaintiff’s Complaint to be a Sham Pleading is Denied.
The Court shall enter Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $99.99 and reserve jurisdiction to determine Plaintiff’s reasonable fees and costs.
__________________
1Had Plaintiff initially sought recovery of an amount between $500.00 and $2,500.00, the filing fee would have been $170.00.
* * *
