Collins et al v. De Los Santos et al
Filing
21
ORDER granting 11 motion to dismiss; granting 12 motion to dismiss; dismissing punitive damage claims without prejudice. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 8/9/2016. (ED)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
LORRIE COLLINS and RONALD
COLLINS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 6:16-cv-852-Orl-31TBS
JORGE DE LOS SANTOS and R.K.
ELITE HYDRO-VAC SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court without oral argument on motions to dismiss a claim
for punitive damages filed by the Defendants, R.K. Elite Hydro-Vac Services, Inc. (“R.K. Elite”)
(Doc. 11) and Jorge De Los Santos (“De Los Santos”) (Doc. 12), and the response in opposition
(Doc. 17) filed by the Plaintiffs, Lorrie Collins and Ronald Collins.
According to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1), which are accepted in pertinent
part as true for purposes of resolving the instant motions, De Los Santos negligently maintained
and operated a pickup truck, which resulted in an accident with a car driven by Lorrie Collins. At
the time of the accident, De Los Santos was working for R.K. Elite, which owned the truck. The
Plaintiffs also contend that R.K. Elite was negligent in overseeing De Los Santos and in
maintaining the truck.
Lorrie Collins asserts three negligence claims (one against De Los Santos, and two against
R.K. Elite), while Ronald Collins asserts a claim for loss of consortium. As to each of the three
negligence claims, Lorrie Collins seeks, inter alia, punitive damages. By way of the instant
motions, Defendants seek to have the requests for punitive damages dismissed pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1
The Defendants in this diversity case argue that the demands for punitive damages do not
comply with the requirements set forth in Section 768.72 of the Florida Statutes. That statute
provides, in pertinent part,
(1) In any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be
permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the
record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a
reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.
…
(2) A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages only if the
trier of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence, finds that the
defendant was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross
negligence. As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Intentional misconduct” means that the defendant had actual
knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high
probability that injury or damage to the claimant would result and,
despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct,
resulting in injury or damage.
(b) “Gross negligence” means that the defendant’s conduct was so
reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard
or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to
such conduct.
Fla. Stat. § 768.72(1-2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held
that the prohibition in Section 768.72(1) against pleading punitive damages in the initial complaint
conflicts with Rule 8(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore does not apply.
1
The Defendants in their motions also refer to Rule 12(f), but do not discuss that subsection
would apply to dismiss a punitive damages claim. As such, this Court uses Rule 12(b)(6) as the
basis for its analysis.
-2-
Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 184 F.3d 1292, 1298-99, vacated on other grounds, 204 F.3d 1069,
1072 (11th Cir. 2000).
However, the Eleventh Circuit has also held that the substantive pleading
standard of that section – which requires a “reasonable showing” that demonstrates a “reasonable
basis for recovery of such damages” – does not conflict with Rule 8(a)(2) (requiring a “short and
plain statement of the claim”) because a prayer for punitive damages is not a claim within the
meaning of the Rule. See, e.g., Gerlach v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2012 WL 5507463 at *2
(M.D.Fla. Nov. 14 2012). Therefore, the allegations in the Complaint in this case as to punitive
damages must satisfy the substantive pleading standard of Fla. Stat. § 768.72.
In the Complaint, it is alleged that on May 17, 2015, Lorrie Santos was driving her vehicle
on an interstate highway. De Los Santos was driving the R.K. Elite-owned truck on the same
highway, moving in the same direction. The Plaintiffs then allege that
At that time and place, Defendant De Los Santos willfully,
wantonly, recklessly, and negligently operated and/or maintained his
vehicle, resulting in Defendant De Los Santos losing control of the
vehicle, leaving his lane of travel and slamming into the vehicle
being operated by Mrs. Collins, pushing Mr. Collins’ vehicle into
and over the concrete barrier wall in the median.
(Doc. 1 at 2). The Plaintiffs offer similarly formulaic recitations regarding the alleged negligence
on the part of De Los Santos’ employer, asserting that R.K. Elite “knowingly condoned, ratified or
consented to the operation, inspection, and maintenance of its vehicle by its employee, Defendant
De Los Santos, in an unsafe or improper condition,” and separately breached its duty of reasonable
care by “failing to properly inflate the tires” on the truck. (Doc. 1 at 4-5).
The Plaintiffs offer no other specifics regarding the Defendants’ alleged negligence.
These allegations fall far short of describing the sort of intentional misconduct or gross negligence
that could support an award of punitive damages under Fla. Stat. § 768.72. Accordingly, it is
hereby
-3-
ORDERED that the motions to dismiss (Doc. 11, 12) are GRANTED, and the claims for
punitive damages are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on August 9, 2016.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?