27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 198a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2702IMPEInsurance — Sanctions imposed on medical provider where provider failed to comply with court order requiring it to serve amended complaint naming correct insurer and improperly obtained order granting leave to belatedly comply with order requiring service of amended complaint through ex parte motion that was heard without notice to insurer
QUALITY PERFORMANCE REHABILITATION, INC., a/a/o Sailor Imperatore, Plaintiff, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. 2018-SC-002082-XXXX-MB-RL. April 11, 2019. Edward A. Garrison, Judge. Counsel: Jonathan Phillips, Florida Litigators PLLC, West Palm Beach, for Plaintiff. Laura Myers-Schader, Dutton Law Group, Fort Lauderdale, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONSFOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’SORDER OF AUGUST 16, 2018 AND FORIMPROPERLY OBTAINING THE ORDER OFJANUARY 3, 2019
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court onDEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FORFAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’SORDER OF AUGUST 16, 2018 AND FORIMPROPERLY OBTAINING THE ORDEROF JANUARY 3, 2019
and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel shall pay sanctions in the amount of $1,125.00 — comprised of 3 hours of attorney time at $350.00 an hour plus reimbursement of costs for the Court reporter at $75.00, for which sum let execution issue. At the outset, this case involved a dispute over whether Plaintiff had sued the correct insurer. Consequently, on August 16, 2018, this Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend by Interlineation to substitute the correct insurer as the party Defendant. That Order required Plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within twenty days of the Order. When Plaintiff failed to do so, on September 19, 2018, Defendant, by and through its counsel, filed a Motion for Sanctions for failure to comply with the Order. Subsequently, Plaintiff acknowledged the existence of defense counsel per virtue of filings in the Court record. Moreover, the evidence at the hearing on Defendant’s motion for sanctions clearly established a record of continued communication between defense counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel subsequent to the August 16, 2018, Order.
Despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s clear knowledge that Defendant was at all times represented by counsel, and that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Compliance was set to be heard on January 9, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel filed an ex parte Motion for Leave to Comply With The Court’s August 16, 2018, Order on December 13, 2018, and set it for hearing without notice to either Defendant or its counsel and appeared, ex parte, on January 3, 2019. As a result of this conduct by Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant was forced file a motion to set aside that January 3, 2019, Order and appear at hearings in order to compel Plaintiff’s compliance with the original August 16, 2018, Order. Subsequent to the Court’s Order on January 9, 2019, vacating the January 3, 2019 ex parte order and deferring its ruling as to the sanctions requested by Defendant, Plaintiff filed a dismissal of the underlying claim.
Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s dismissal of the instant action on January 29, 2019, this Court finds it inherently retained sufficient jurisdiction to impose sanctions for the Plaintiff’s violation of this Court’s August 16, 2018 Order and subsequent ex parte conduct pursuant to Giuffre v. Edwards, 226 So.3d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) [42 Fla. L. Weekly D1912a]; Amlan, Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp. 651 So.2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly D295a].
