final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County,
Lower Tribunal No. 15-013964 Rodney Smith, Judge.
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith and Todd Ehrenreich, Seth V.
Alhadeff and Ravika Rameshwar, for petitioners.
I. Kreizinger and Justine S. Anagnos (Fort Lauderdale), for
SALTER, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.
LLC, Sway 204-1 Borrower, LLC, Sway Management, LLC (doing
business as "Waypoint Homes"), and SRP Sub, LLC,
defendants in the wrongful death lawsuit below, petition for
a writ of certiorari quashing a circuit court order granting
the plaintiffs' motion to amend to add a claim for
punitive damages. The plaintiffs, respondents here, are the
co-personal representatives of the estate of their son,
Alfredo Suarez. Alfredo, then eight years old, died when a
driveway gate gave way and fell on him. The four defendants
are companies which owned, managed, or maintained the rented
residence where Alfredo and his family lived and where the
the respondents failed to comply with the procedure
applicable to motions to amend to add claims for punitive
damages, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(f), and failed
to make the proffer required to assert such claims against
corporate defendants under section 768.72(3), Florida
Statutes (2016), we grant the petition and quash the order.
claimant's failure to comply with the procedural
requirements of the punitive damages statute may be redressed
via certiorari. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v.
Doe, 44 So.3d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
plaintiffs filed a motion to amend to add a claim for
punitive damages, but they did not attach to their motion
their proposed amended complaint. Instead, they included in
the body of their motion the facts asserted to meet the
proffer required by section 768.72. The plaintiffs did not
file their amended complaint containing the claims for
punitive damages until after the trial court granted their
motion to amend.
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) specifies that a party
filing a motion to amend "shall" attach the
proposed amended pleading to the motion. The plaintiffs argue
that it is permissible to file a motion to amend
"separately" when the proposed amendment only adds
the punitive damages claims, based on their interpretation of
(f) Claims for Punitive Damages. A motion
for leave to amend a pleading to assert a claim for punitive
damages shall make a reasonable showing, by evidence in the
record or evidence to be proffered by the claimant, that
provides a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. The
motion to amend can be filed separately and before the
supporting evidence or proffer, but each shall be served on
all parties at least 20 days before the hearing.
plain meaning of Rule 1.190(f) does not support the
plaintiffs' argument. The Rule allows the motion to amend
(attaching, as Rule 1.190(a) requires, the proposed amended
pleading) to be filed separately from the evidence or proffer
asserted to satisfy the statutory requirements of section
768.72. Rule 1.190(f) does not waive or dispense with the
requirement to attach the ...