Case Name: PACER TECHNOLOGY, Appellant, v. LEE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-08-04
Citations: 737 So. 2d 1238
Docket Number: No. 98-1382
Parties: PACER TECHNOLOGY, Appellant, v. LEE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and GODERICH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 737
Pages: 1238–1239

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.