Court Opinion

ID: 4368811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-02-18 17:02:46.585651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:49:22.084694
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                   _____________________________

                           No. 1D18-3534
                   _____________________________

JUAN RICARDO JACKSON
MELENDEZ and JESSICA SANTO
RIVERA,

    Petitioners,

    v.

DONALD DELAND EVERSOLE and
MICHELE MARIE EVERSOLE, his
wife,

    Respondents.
               _____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

                         February 18, 2019

PER CURIAM.

     Petitioners seek certiorari review of the order allowing
Respondents to amend their counterclaim to assert a claim for
punitive damages. In such a proceeding, the scope of our review is
limited to determining whether the trial court complied with the
procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes. We,
conversely, lack “jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the
evidence proffered to support the punitive damages claim.” Am.
Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D2519 (Fla. 1st
DCA Nov. 13, 2018) (citing Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.
2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995) and additional cases). Because the trial
court complied with the applicable procedural requirements, the
petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.

WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

Paul M. Eza and Michael L. Glass of Stone, Glass & Connolly, LLP,
Jacksonville, for Petitioners.

Benjamin E. Richard, Curry G. Pajcic, and William A. Bald of
Pajcic & Pajcic, P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondents.

                               2