From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Closuit v. Crane Envir

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 25, 2003
850 So. 2d 652 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Opinion

Case No. 2D02-2744

Opinion filed July 25, 2003.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Nancy K. Donnellan, Judge.

John R. Bush and Stephen B. French of Bush Ross Gardner Warren Rudy, Tampa, for Appellants.

Lawrence P. Bemis and Michael S. McCauley of Kirkland Ellis, Los Angeles, California, and Arthur R. Lewis, Jr., of Steele Hector Davis, LLP, Miami, for Appellee.


The circuit court entered a final judgment awarding Crane Environmental attorneys' fees as a sanction for the discovery violations of the defendants, Edward Closuit, Myriam Murphy, and Andalite Industries. The defendants challenge this judgment on four grounds, but we find merit in only one. We reverse the attorneys' fees awarded for Crane's counsels' time spent in responding to a petition for common law certiorari filed in this court. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

We have jurisdiction to review this judgment. See Ruppel v. Gulfwinds Apartments, Inc., 508 So.2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Neilsen v. Joannou, 835 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

The petition for certiorari sought review of the circuit court's order striking the defendants' trade secret objections to Crane's request for production of documents. Crane's counsel responded to the petition but did not file a motion for attorneys' fees with this court. We subsequently denied the defendants' petition.

The circuit court determined that Crane was entitled to attorneys' fees as a sanction for the defendants' numerous discovery violations. Crane's attorneys requested $36,442 in fees attributable to their time spent in responding to the petition for certiorari. The circuit court was aware that Crane had not sought fees in this court, but it awarded Crane that amount "as a deterrent and as a sanction." We understand the court's frustration with the defendants' behavior. However, absent an authorization from this court, the circuit court had no authority to award attorneys' fees for services in this court, even as a sanction.Wood v. Steen, 830 So.2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

We reverse the portion of the judgment that awards $36,442 for Crane's counsels' time spent in responding to the petition for writ of certiorari. Otherwise, we affirm.

STRINGER and CANADY, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Closuit v. Crane Envir

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 25, 2003
850 So. 2d 652 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
Case details for

Closuit v. Crane Envir

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD CLOSUIT, MYRIAM MURPHY, and ANDALITE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Florida…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jul 25, 2003

Citations

850 So. 2d 652 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Citing Cases

Bartow HMA, LLC v. Kirkland

This requirement applies equally to certiorari proceedings before the appellate court. See Closuit v. Crane…

Santiago v. Sunset Cove Invs., Inc.

Seeid. “Absent an appellate court's authorization, a circuit court has ‘no authority to award attorney's fees…