Pronman v. Styles, ___ So. 3d ___, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D572 (Fla. 4th DCA March 4, 2015)
The appellate court affirmed the imposition of sanctions under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, because of the existence of competent substantial evidence that the defendants and their lawyer knew or should have known that their motion to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue “were unsupported by the facts and the law” and thwarted discovery dealing with the issues raised by their motion. “In their motion, the [defendants] represented that they had no ties to Broward County and they and their corporate entity did business only in Canada,” but the discovery that the defendants “vociferously” opposed ultimately provided “overwhelming evidence . . . that the [defendants] and their corporate entity conducted their business in Broward County, Florida.” The trial court erred, however, by awarding costs because “section 57.105 does not provide a mechanism for recovering costs.”
To read more briefs in the Civil Procedure category of the Kashi Law Letter, please click here, http://www.kashilawletter.com/category/civil-procedure/.
To read more briefs in the Sanctions category of the Kashi Law Letter, please click here, http://www.kashilawletter.com/category/sanctions/.
To read more briefs in the Attorney’s Fees category of the Kashi Law Letter, please click here, http://www.kashilawletter.com/category/attorneys-fees/.
To read more briefs in the Florida Statutes category of the Kashi Law Letter, please click here, http://www.kashilawletter.com/category/florida-statutes/.