18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 897a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1809VILL
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Hearing — Continuance — Motions to continue attorney’s fee hearings due to unavailability of insurer’s expert witnesses are denied
STAND UP MRI OF MIAMI, INC. (a/a/o Arnulfo Villalobos), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 07-9417 COCE (53). SUNRISE CHIROPRACTIC AND REHAB CENTER (a/a/o Detilus Ciceron), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 09-8439 COCE (53). June 9, 2011. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Andrew J. Weinstein, Weinstein Law Firm, Coral Springs, for STAND UP MRI OF MIAMI, INC., a/a/o Arnulfo Villalobos. Orlando Ortiz, Miami, for UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. Henry R. Crouser, Miami, and Stephen Cameron, Plantation, for SUNRISE CHIROPRACTIC AND REHAB CENTER. Adam Shapiro, for Defendant (SUNRISE case).
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO CONTINUE FEE HEARINGS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for consideration of the Defendant’s Motion to Continue Fee Hearings set before the Court in each of the above cases, and the Court’s having reviewed the Motions, the Court files, and the relevant legal authorities, and the Court’s being sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
In each of the above cases, the Defendant has moved to continue fee hearings due to unavailability of expert witnesses. The Court’s fee hearing availability is extremely limited, and yet in almost every setting of a fee hearing involving this Defendant, the Defendant has a conflict of some sort. If the Defendant is going to maintain an active PIP caseload in the trial division of this Court, with cases aggressively litigated in each division of the County Court Civil Division, then the Defendant simply must provide sufficient personnel, including experts, who can handle such an active docket.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motions for Continuance are DENIED. However, if the parties are able to agree, the Court has no objection to the two cases switching hearing times. If the parties are able to do this, the Court requests that the Court’s Judicial Assistant be advised in writing.
