Court Opinion

ID: 9369277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 16:03:41.318751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:13.998265
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed February 8, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                       Nos. 3D22-820 & 3D22-1284
                       Lower Tribunal No. 20-6403
                           ________________

                      Pierre Richard Staniclas,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                        Deric L. Bogran, et al.,
                                 Appellees.

     Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola,
Judge.

     MetschLaw, P.A., and Lawrence R. Metsch (Hollywood), for appellant.

    Resnick & Louis, P.A. and Alyssa Cina, for appellee Alexander
Gamarnik.

Before HENDON, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.

     Affirmed. See Dade Cnty. v. Lambert, 334 So. 2d 844, 847 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1976) (applying rule that “default of one defendant, although an

admission by him of the allegations of the complaint, does not operate as an

admission of such allegation as against a contesting co-defendant”

notwithstanding that non-defaulted defendant’s liability was vicarious to

defaulting defendant’s negligence); Ridard v. Massa Inv. Grp., LLC, 337 So.

3d 862, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“The doctrine of collateral estoppel does

not apply where, as here, the case on which the estoppel claim is based is

still at issue. . . . Necessarily, ‘the particular matter must be fully litigated and

determined in a contest that results in a final decision of a court of competent

jurisdiction.’” (quoting Bradenton Group, Inc. v. State, 970 So. 2d 403, 408

(Fla. 5th DCA 2007))); Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA

2017) (“[Section 768.72, Florida Statutes] requires the trial court to act as a

gatekeeper and precludes a claim for punitive damages where there is no

reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery.”).

                                         2