28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 239b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2803SLAS
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Complaint — Amendment — Motion to amend complaint following confession of judgment for full jurisdictional amount alleged in original complaint is denied — Motion to enforce confession of judgment is granted
UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTER, P.A., a/a/o Laura Slasinski, Plaintiff, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COWE18006184, Division 83. March 10, 2020. Ellen Feld, Judge. Counsel: John C. Daly, for Plaintiff. Yineth Sanchez Aslan, for Defendant.
AGREED ORDER
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TOENFORCE ITS CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on March 5, 2020, on Defendant’s Motion to Enforce its Confession of Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend its Complaint, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised on the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUGED, as follows:
On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff, University Health Center, P.A., as assignee of Laura Slasinski, filed its Complaint for Personal Injury Protection benefits in Small Claims Court, seeking damages that do not “exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), exclusive of interest, attorney’s fees and costs.” No specific amount of damages was stated on the Complaint. On July 23, 2018, the parties invoked the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and subsequently Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on January 10, 2020.
On February 3, 2020, Defendant confessed judgment in this case for the maximum jurisdictional amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00), plus interest in the amount of thirty-seven dollars with two cents ($ 37.02). In its Confession of Judgment, Defendant also stipulated to Plaintiff’s entitlement to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Leave to Amend its Complaint stating that “Plaintiff had recently discovered there were additional underpayments and that the amount owed exceeds the jurisdictional amount listed in the initial Complaint.” Plaintiff further stated that it sought “to file an amended complaint, changing only the jurisdictional limit to $100-$500.”
On February 6, 2020, Defendant filed its Motion to Enforce its Confession of Judgment. No Notice of Rejection of Defendant’s Confession of Judgment was filed by the Plaintiff on this case. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff received payment for the Confession of Judgment on February 18, 2020 and provided as evidence the return receipt for the confession payment mailed to Plaintiff via certified mail. Plaintiff did not challenge Defendant’s assertion regarding the tendering of confession payment.
On March 5, 2020, Defendant’s Motion to Enforce its Confession of Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend its Complaint were set for hearing. At the hearing, Plaintiff argued that in the interest of justice, the Court should permit the amendment of Plaintiff’s Complaint since Plaintiff was unaware of the exact amount that was due on the case due to Defendant’s failure to provide discovery during the litigation.
In response, Defendant provided to the Court Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter, dated May 1, 2018, an assignment of benefits, and a patient ledger indicating as the amount overdue two thousand six hundred and eighty-eight dollars with forty-two cents ($2,688.42). Defendant argued that prior to the start of the litigation, Plaintiff was aware of the amount due on the case and had all necessary documents to determine the amount owed on the claim. Defendant further argued that “a plaintiff can voluntarily reduce the amount of its claim to obtain a lower filing fee, but in doing so also accepts the burden with that benefit where a confession of judgment for the reduced amount is a valid confession of judgment.” Douglas Price, P.A. d/b/a Florida Pain, Trauma & Injury Clinic, a/a/o Dickenson Chery, v. MGA Insurance Company, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1094b, Case No. 13-CC-032481, (Hillsborough Cty. Ct. Mar. 18, 2015).
Additionally, Defendant argued that after the filing of a Notice of Confession of Judgment for the maximum jurisdictional amount and a stipulation to reasonable attorney’s fees, the Court is divested of jurisdiction except as to reasonable attorney’s fees, and the Plaintiff is not entitled to substantive relief since all other motions seeking relief are moot. Defendant cited the following legal authority to support its position: Alliance Spine & Joint III, LLC (a/a/o Audrey Belmonte) v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 2018-005094 COCE 54, (Broward Cty. Ct. June 18, 2019, nunc pro tunc May 28, 2019) [27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 759a]; Berman Chiropractic, a/a/o Rochel Albert, v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 2017-026778 COWE 82, (Broward Cty. Ct. May 13, 2019); Chirocare of Sunrise, LLC (a/a/o Diosky De La Cruz) v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 2017-005436 CONO 70, (Broward Cty. Ct. Mar. 21, 2019, nunc pro tunc Apr. 13, 2018) [27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 202a]; Lake Worth Chiro a/a/o Cruz McKnight, v. Progressive American Insurance Company, Case No. 2015-008698 CONO 70, (Broward Cty. Ct. Feb. 25, 2016); Douglas Price, P.A. d/b/a Florida Pain, Trauma & Injury Clinic, a/a/o Dickenson Chery, v. MGA Insurance Company, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1094b, Case No. 13-CC-032481, (Hillsborough Cty. Ct. Mar. 18, 2015); Douglas Price, P.A. d/b/a Florida Pain, Trauma & Injury Clinic, a/a/o Nehemie Chery, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile, Case No. 14-CC-009868, (Hillsborough Cty. Ct. May 9, 2014); GEICO Casualty Company v. Barber, 147 So. 3d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D1727a]; and Bretz Chiropractic Clinic, a/a/o Tyler Whitlock, v. GEICO General Insurance Company, 2017-AP-005946 NC, (12th Jud. Cir. Ct. App., Oct. 8, 2018) [26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 620a].
After reviewing the case law provided by the parties and the documents in question, this Court is divested of jurisdiction upon the filing of a confession of judgment, and this Court will find that the confession is, in fact, valid because the confession is up to the jurisdictional amount as alleged in the Complaint. Further as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend its Complaint, this Court will find that the motion is moot since a valid confession of judgment has been filed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Enforce its Confession of Judgment is GRANTED; and
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend its Complaint is DENIED as moot in light of this ruling.
