Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P. v. Hollfelder
Citations: 771 So. 2d 585; 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14655; 2000 WL 1675727Docket: No. 1D00-3933
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 8, 2000; Florida; State Appellate Court
Kurt F. Hollfelder initiated a lawsuit seeking damages against multiple defendants, including William Finger and several law firms (referred to as the "law firm defendants"), based on allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting, among other claims. All claims against the law firm defendants were categorized as shareholder derivative actions. Following extensive discovery, Hollfelder attempted to amend his complaint to include claims for punitive damages. The law firm defendants filed a motion to strike these punitive damages claims, which the trial court denied. Subsequently, the defendants petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review this decision. The court first addressed the jurisdiction issue, citing precedent from *Globe Newspaper Co. v. King* and *Nova Southeastern University v. McCollough*, affirming that certiorari review is appropriate to determine if the trial court complied with procedural requirements concerning the plaintiff's ability to claim punitive damages. The court concurred with the Fourth District's interpretation, allowing for certiorari review of the trial court's order. On the substantive issue, the law firm defendants argued, referencing *Lanman Lithotech, Inc. v. Gurwitz*, that punitive damages are not applicable in shareholder derivative actions due to their equitable nature. Hollfelder contended that subsequent legislation, particularly section 607.07401 of the Florida Statutes, enacted in 1989, effectively overruled the precedent set by *Lanman*. However, the court maintained that this statute did not alter the traditional equitable nature of such actions. The court also found the defendants' reliance on sections 768.72 and 768.73, from the Tort Reform and Insurance Act of 1986, misplaced. These sections were designed to restrict the circumstances under which punitive damages could be awarded, not to expand them. The court concluded that *Lanman* remains valid law regarding punitive damages in shareholder derivative actions. Consequently, the court granted the petition for certiorari, directing the trial court to grant the law firm defendants' motion to strike the punitive damages claims. The decision was supported by Judges Kahn, Davis, and Van Nortwick.