25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 830a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2509DUCKAttorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Neither section 768.79 nor rule 1.442 applies to post-judgment proceedings following an adjudication on the merits — Motion to strike plaintiff’s proposal for settlement granted
BEACHES OPEN MRI OF PBG, LLC a/a/o Marcy Duckworth, Plaintiff, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. 50-2015-SC-003170-XXXX-NB. November 21, 2017. Sandra Bosso-Pardo, Judge. Counsel: Peter S. Van Keuren, Gordon & Doner, P.A., Davie, for Plaintiff. Scott W. Dutton and O. Oliver Wragg, Dutton Law Group, Ft. Lauderdale, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TOSTRIKE PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on November 20, 2017, on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement and the Court, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise duly advised in the premised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. The Court finds that neither the Offer of Judgment statute, F.S. § 768.79, nor Rule 1.442 apply to post-judgment proceedings. There is nothing in the language of either the statute or the rule that suggests their applicability to proceedings following an adjudication on the merits. If the Legislature had so intended it would have made such a provision. Since the statute is in derogation of common law it must be strictly construed. The court will not infer authority when it is not specifically granted.
