Case ID: so2d_737/html/1238-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PACER TECHNOLOGY, Appellant, v. LEE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Appellees.
    No. 98-1382.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Aug. 4, 1999.
    
      Kubicki Draper and Elizabeth M. Rodriguez, Miami, for appellant.
    Marlow, Connell, Valerius, Abrams, Alder & Newman and William G. Edwards, Miami, for appellees.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and GODERICH, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The third-party defendant, Pacer Technology [Pacer], appeals from a final order denying its motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the offer of judgment statute. § 768.79(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993). We reverse finding that the trial court abused its discretion by determining that Pacer’s offer was not made in good faith.

A review of the record shows that the third-party plaintiffs presented no evidence that met their burden of proving that Pacer’s offer was not made in good faith. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 715 So.2d 1079, 1081-82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Further, Pacer presented affidavits that supported its position that the offer was, in fact, made in good faith and that the offer bore a reasonable relationship to a realistic assessment of liability. See Manasse, 715 So.2d at 1082; Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So.2d 946, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Reversed and remanded for a determination of the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees.