MELENDEZ v. EVERSOLE (2019)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Juan Ricardo Jackson MELENDEZ and Jessica Santo Rivera, Petitioners, v. Donald Deland EVERSOLE and Michele Marie Eversole, His Wife, Respondents.

No. 1D18-3534

Decided: February 18, 2019

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.

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, 263 So.3d 133, 2018 WL 5915019 (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.

Per Curiam.

Wolf, Osterhaus, and Jay, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network