21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 276a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2103NGOInsurance — Attorney’s fees — Contempt — Where insurer originally made no effort to comply with court order requiring it to state basis for disputing claimed attorney’s fees and costs with particularity and to cite supporting authority for any objections, sanctions against insurer are warranted — Insurer’s tardy objection to duplicative time entries is preserved, although further sanctions may be imposed if objection is determined to be unreasonable, and all other objections are deemed waived
MRI ASSOCIATES OF ST. PETE, INC., d/b/a Saint Pete MRI, as assignee of Tina Ngo, Plaintiff, vs. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 11-CC-14807, Division H. October 15, 2013. Honorable Christopher C. Nash, Judge. Counsel: Lorca J. Divale, The Physician Collections Group, P.A., Tampa; Scott R. Jeeves, The Jeeves Law Group, P.A., St. Petersburg; Michael A. Roe, Austin, Roe & Patsko, P.A., Tampa; and David M. Caldevilla, de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiffs. David S. Dougherty, Law Offices of Ellen H. Ehrenpreis, Tampa; and Dorothy V. DiFiore, Haas Lewis DiFiore, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FORORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on August 19, 2013 and October 8, 2013 concerning the “Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Should Not Be Held in Contempt” filed by the Plaintiff on July 30, 2013. The Court having considered the motion, the record, the evidence presented, and the argument from counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Should Not Be Held in Contempt” is hereby granted in part and denied in part, as set forth below.
2. On March 1, 2013, this Court entered a scheduling order concerning Plaintiff’s claims for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
3. On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff complied with the first of those instructions by providing its list of items and costs for which it seeks payment. Pursuant to the Court’s instructions, the Defendant had 10 days to dispute those items and costs, stating with particularity the basis and citing supporting authority for any objections. In violation of this Court’s March 1, 2013, order, the Defendant did not respond.
4. On July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed its first motion for an order to show cause as to why the Defendant should not be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the March 1, 2013 order. On August 19, 2013, a hearing was held on that motion. The Court reserved ruling on the motion, but orally instructed the Defendant’s counsel to comply with the March 1 order. During the hearing, the Defendant’s counsel stated to the Court that he would comply that same day.
5. Thereafter, on August 19, 2013, the Defendant filed its “Notice of Filing Objections in Compliance with March 1, 2013 Order Preliminary to Mediation/Arbitration Hearing Motion to Tax Costs and Award Attorney’s Fees and Motion to Conduct Discovery with Regard to Reasonable Number of Attorney’s Fees.” However, contrary to the requirements set forth in the Court’s March 1, 2013 order, the Defendant raised only a single objection to all of the Plaintiffs time entries, and did not cite any authority in support of its objection.
6. On August 20, 2013, in response to the Defendant’s notice of filing objections, the Plaintiff filed its “Second Motion for Order to Show Cause, and For Sanctions Against the Defendant.”
7. Subsequently, on August 21, 2013, the Defendant filed its “Amended Notice of Filing Objections in Compliance with March 1, 2013 Order Preliminary to Mediation/Arbitration Hearing Motion to Tax Costs and Award Attorney’s Fees and Motion to Conduct Discovery with Regard to Reasonable Number of Attorney’s Fees.” In that filing, however, the Defendant again raised only a single objection to all of the Plaintiff’s time entries, and again failed to cite supporting authority for its objection.
8. On October 4, 2013, the Defendant filed its “Second Amended Notice of Filing Objections in Compliance with March 1, 2013 Order Preliminary to Mediation/Arbitration Hearing Motion to Tax Costs and Award Attorney’s Fees and Motion to Conduct Discovery with Regard to Reasonable Number of Attorney’s Fees.” In that filing, the Defendant raised the same objection to all of the Plaintiff’s time entries, but this time, the Defendant also cited supporting authority for its objection.
9. On October 8, 2013, a hearing was held. At the hearing, the Court found that the Defendant had originally made no effort to comply with the March 1, 2013 order, and that therefore, sanctions against the Defendant are warranted. During the hearing, the Defendant orally waived the necessity for an additional order to show cause hearing.
10. The Court holds that the Defendant’s single objection to the Plaintiff’s time entries concerning alleged duplicative time entries, which the Defendant has asserted in its notices of filing objections pursuant to the March 1, 2013 order, is preserved. While the Court makes no ruling on the merits of that objection at this time, the Court reserves the right, pursuant to paragraph 9 of the March 1, 2013 order, to consider further sanctions should the Defendant’s preserved objection be determined to be unreasonable. The Defendant has not asserted any other objection concerning the Plaintiff’s time entries, and therefore, any and all other objections are hereby deemed waived.
11. The Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the Plaintiff’s efforts to compel the Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s March 1, 2013 order, through October 4, 2013, in an amount to be determined by the Court. See, Rule 1.380(b)(2), Fla. R. Civ. P. (“Instead of any of the foregoing orders or in addition to them, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order to pay the reasonable expenses caused by the failure, which may include attorneys’ fees. . .”).
* * *
