Title: In Re: Amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

- 1 - 
 
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC21-129 
____________ 
 
IN RE: AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE 
PROCEDURE 9.130. 
 
January 6, 2022 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This matter is before the Court for consideration of a proposed 
amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 
(Proceedings to Review Nonfinal Orders and Specified Final Orders).  
See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140(f).  We have 
jurisdiction.1 
 
The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee 
(Committee) filed a report proposing an amendment to Florida Rule 
of Appellate Procedure 9.130.  The Committee’s proposal follows a 
referral by the Court asking the Committee to propose rule 
amendments to provide for the interlocutory appeal of nonfinal 
 
 
1.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
- 2 - 
 
orders granting or denying leave to amend a complaint to assert a 
claim for punitive damages. 
 
The Committee and the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar 
approved the proposed amendment.  The Committee published its 
proposal for comment prior to filing it with the Court and received 
two comments.  After the Committee filed its report, the Court 
published the proposal for comment and received three comments. 
After reviewing the proposal, considering the comments and 
response filed, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we 
adopt the proposed amendment to rule 9.130.  Specifically, new 
subdivision (a)(3)(G) is added to authorize appeals of nonfinal orders 
that grant or deny a motion for leave to amend to assert a claim for 
punitive damages. 
Accordingly, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 is 
amended as reflected in the appendix to this opinion.  New 
language is indicated by underscoring.  The amendment shall take 
effect on April 1, 2022, at 12:01 a.m. 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and 
GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. 
LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion. 
- 3 - 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER 
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT. 
 
LABARGA, J., dissenting. 
 
Today, the majority abandons our long-standing certiorari 
procedure for appealing orders that grant leave to include a claim 
for punitive damages in civil cases.  In its place, through an 
amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, the 
majority has authorized the classification of such orders as nonfinal 
in nature, thereby clearing the way for immediate interlocutory 
appeal. 
The unfortunate consequence of this drastic change in 
appellate procedure will be unnecessary and unwarranted delays in 
civil actions with claims for punitive damages.  Undoubtedly, once 
the interlocutory vehicle of appellate review is available, it is not 
unreasonable to expect that the losing party will choose to pursue 
an immediate appeal of the trial court’s order in most, if not all, 
cases, adding to the caseload of appellate courts.  Once the trial 
court’s ruling is appealed, the case will necessarily stall at the trial 
level until the district court renders a ruling on whether the claim 
for punitive damages was properly permitted. 
- 4 - 
 
Given this additional delay, it is also not unreasonable to 
anticipate that some claimants in civil cases may reluctantly forgo 
meritorious claims for punitive damages in order to avoid delay in 
bringing their cases to a final resolution.  Of particular concern are 
tort cases involving personal injury, where claims for much needed 
medical and economic relief will stall until the question of punitive 
damages is resolved.  Access to our judicial system with claims 
authorized by law should not be impeded by unnecessary delay and 
resulting additional expense. 
 
Tellingly, during oral argument on August 31, 2021, counsel 
for the Appellate Court Rules Committee of The Florida Bar 
(Committee) noted that in a 2018 fifty-state survey, no state had a 
rule like the one adopted today by the majority.2  Oral Argument at 
4:43, https://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/viewcase.php?eid=2761. 
 
At the heart of the majority’s decision is a concern for the 
privacy of financial discovery.  Section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes 
 
 
2.  Recently, in In re Amendment to Florida Rule of Civil 
Procedure 1.280, 324 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2021), we noted that analysis 
of other states’ practices is relevant when reviewing our own state’s 
rules. 
- 5 - 
 
(2019), specifically provides that “[n]o discovery of financial worth 
shall proceed until after the pleading concerning punitive damages 
is permitted.”  Thus, once the trial court approves the addition of a 
claim for punitive damages, the claimant is entitled to conduct 
financial discovery to determine the financial worth of the 
defendant.  This process has been the subject of much discussion 
throughout the years, with the right to privacy of financial 
information as the major concern.  However, the privacy of the 
financial information disclosed during discovery can be effectively 
protected by a confidentiality order entered upon the request of the 
disclosing party.  Thus, there is no reason to abandon the existing 
fair and efficient certiorari review of these rulings. 
 
Finally, while the majority is correct that “[t]he Committee and 
the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar approved the proposed 
amendment,” majority op. at 2, the Committee did so grudgingly.  
Upon receipt of the Court’s referral letter, the matter was first 
evaluated by the Committee’s civil practice subcommittee 
(subcommittee).  Although the subcommittee recommended the 
amendment to rule 9.130, it acknowledged that the Committee had 
previously voted to not recommend an amendment to the rule based 
- 6 - 
 
on similar referrals in recent years.  In this instance, however, the 
subcommittee felt constrained to propose an amendment upon 
concluding that the Court’s referral was a directive to do so.  Report 
of the Appellate Court Rules Committee, app. at G-15.  During its 
January 2021 meeting, the full Committee approved the 
amendment, while also approving the subcommittee’s 
recommendation that “it would not [have supported the 
amendment] but for the mandate from the Court.”  Id. 
 
Accordingly, because there is no reason for the majority’s 
drastic, unnecessary, and consequential rule change, I respectfully 
dissent. 
Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 
Laura A. Roe, Chair, Appellate Court Rules Committee, St. 
Petersburg, Florida, Elaine D. Walter, Vice Chair, Appellate Court 
Rules Committee, Miami, Florida, Honorable Stephanie Williams 
Ray, Past Chair, Appellate Court Rules Committee, Tallahassee, 
Florida, Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, and Krys Godwin, 
Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Kansas R. Gooden on behalf of the Florida Defense Lawyers 
Association, Miami, Florida; Maegen Peek Luka of Newsome Melton, 
Orlando, Florida, and Bryan S. Gowdy of Creed & Gowdy, P.A., 
Jacksonville, Florida; and William T. Cotterall on behalf of the 
Florida Justice Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
- 7 - 
 
Responding with comments 
- 8 - 
 
APPENDIX 
RULE 9.130. 
PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW NONFINAL ORDERS 
AND SPECIFIED FINAL ORDERS 
 
(a) 
Applicability. 
 
(1) 
 - (2) 
[No Change] 
(3) 
Appeals to the district courts of appeal of nonfinal 
orders are limited to those that: 
 
(A) 
 - (F) 
[No Change] 
 
(G)  grant or deny a motion for leave to amend to 
assert a claim for punitive damages. 
 
(4) - (5) 
[No Change] 
 
 
(b) - (i) 
[No Change] 
Committee Notes 
[No Change]