Court Opinion

ID: 9902703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:22:00.99547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:57.341511
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                        Case No. 5D23-121
                    LT Case No. 2018-CA-5658
                  _____________________________

SEJAL KUTHIALA, M.D.,

     Appellant,

     v.

DAVID M. GOLDMAN and BETH
MAYERS GOLDMAN,

     Appellees.
                  _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Gilbert L. Feltel, Jr., Judge.

M. Scott Thomas, of Burr & Forman, LLP, Jacksonville, for
Appellant.

Douglas Bradford Hughes, of Cobb & Gonzalez, P.A., Jacksonville,
for Appellees.

                        September 15, 2023

WALLIS, J.

      Sejal Kuthiala (Appellant) appeals an order denying her
motion for attorney’s fees filed pursuant to section 768.79, Florida
Statutes (2022). We reverse.
       This case began when David M. Goldman and Beth Mayers
Goldman (Appellees) filed a three-count complaint against
Appellant. During the litigation, Appellant served proposals for
settlement on both Appellees pursuant to section 768.79. Appellees
did not respond to either proposal.

       The trial court granted Appellant’s summary judgment
motion on the first and third counts of the complaint, and denied
the motion on the second count of the complaint. After the court
ruled on the motions for summary judgment, Appellees filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of their case against
Appellant.

       Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion to tax costs and
attorney’s fees based on Appellees’ rejection of her proposals for
settlement. The trial court ultimately denied Appellant’s request
for attorney’s fees, finding that granting the motion “would be
inconsistent with binding authority.” 1

       On appeal, Appellant acknowledges that MX Investments v.
Crawford, 700 So. 2d 640, 641–42 (Fla. 1997), held that a dismissal
without prejudice does not support an award of attorneys’ fees
under section 768.79. She argues, however, that MX Investments
is distinguishable from this case because, here, there was an
adjudication on the merits on counts one and three. Instead,
Appellant argues that this Court’s decision in Scherer Construction
& Engineering of Central Florida, LLC v. Scott Partnership
Architecture, Inc., 151 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), is controlling
and requires reversal of the order denying her request for attorney’s
fees.

      In Scherer, our court held that attorney’s fees were not
awardable under section 768.79 for a claim that was voluntarily
dismissed. 151 So. 3d at 530. However, the Scherer court affirmed
the portion of the trial court’s order that awarded attorney’s fees
under section 768.79 on the claim on which the trial court had
entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Id.; see also

     1 The order granted Appellant’s request for costs and ordered

that Appellees pay Appellant $2,207.38 in costs.

                                  2
CodeVentures, LLC v. Vital Motion Inc., No. 22-11288, 2023 WL
2644173 (11th Cir. Mar. 27, 2023) (following Scherer).

       We agree with Appellant that MX Investments is factually
distinguishable from the instant case because there the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the entire action and none of the claims were
adjudicated on the merits. We likewise agree that the facts in this
case are identical to those in Scherer, which controls the outcome of
this case. Therefore, based on Scherer, we reverse the order denying
Appellant’s motion to tax costs and attorney’s fees and remand for
entry of an order awarding attorney’s fees to Appellant on counts
one and three of her complaint.

      REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

MAKAR and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

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

                                  3