AMAYA LIGHTING PLASTERING LLC v. ISLA (2023)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AMAYA LIGHTING & PLASTERING, LLC, Appellant, v. Carlos Alberto ISLA, Appellee.

No. 3D22-1933

Decided: April 05, 2023

Before MILLER, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ.

Andrew T. Trailor, P.A., and Andrew T. Trailor, for appellant. Remer, Georges-Pierre & Hoogerwoerd, PLLC, and Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, for appellee.

Affirmed. See O'Neal v. Darling, 321 So. 3d 309, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quoting Swan Landing Dev., LLC v. First Tenn. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 97 So. 3d 326, 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)) (“[S]ection 57.105 must be applied with restraint to ensure that it serves its intended purpose of discouraging baseless claims without casting ‘a chilling effect on use of the courts.’ ”); Minto PBLH, LLC v. 1000 Friends of Fla., Inc., 228 So. 3d 147, 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Where there is an arguable basis in law and fact for a party's claim, a trial court may not sanction that party under section 57.105.”); Cullen v. Marsh, 34 So. 3d 235, 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“[M]erely losing a case on the merits is not a basis for a section 57.105 fee award.”); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“[T]he record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.”).

PER CURIAM.

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Out of date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