Ermini v. Scott et al

Filing 137

ORDER SUSTAINING the Defendant's objection to the Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4. It is ORDERED that the Defendant's objection to the Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4, the Fee Agreement and Release for Wilbur Smith Law Firm, is SUSTAINED. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 1/5/2018. (MAF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
PATRICIA I. ERMINI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-701-FtM-31CM

MIKE SCOTT, CHARLENE PALMESE,
RICHARD LISENBEE, ROBERT
HAMER and WILLIAM MURPHY,
Defendants.

ORDER
On January 5, 2018, the Court held a telephonic hearing, at which it heard argument on the
Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 4. Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 4 is a Fee Agreement
and Release for Wilbur Smith Law Firm. See Doc. 124. The Plaintiff argued that the Fee
Agreement and Release is relevant to the issue of damages that the Plaintiff incurred as a result of
her arrest. However, it appears from case law cited by the Defendant that fees for defending the
Plaintiff against potential prosecution are not recoverable. Although the cases cited by the
Defendant deal with false arrest, and not a negligence action, the logic in the courts’ reasoning
extends to the matter at hand. See City of Miami Beach v. Bretagna, 190 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1966); see also City of St. Petersburg v. Hackman, 672 So. 2d 42, 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not requested jury instruction on the pursuit of those legal fees as
part of her damages, nor has she cited any authority indicating that such recovery is available.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s objection to the Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 4, the Fee Agreement
and Release for Wilbur Smith Law Firm, is SUSTAINED.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on January 5, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

-2-