Poindexter v. Zacharzewski et al

Filing 73

ORDER granting 46 Motion to Strike, adopting 63 Report and Recommendations, and granting 71 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Robin L. Rosenberg on 11/27/2018. See attached document for full details. (bkd)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 2:18-CV-14155-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD YVONNE POINDEXTER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Britney Poindexter, deceased, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH ZACHARZEWSKI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter Roney, deceased, et al., Defendants. / ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Claim for Punitive Damages [DE 46], which was referred for appropriate disposition to the Honorable Shaniek M. Maynard. On November 5, 2018, Judge Maynard issued her Report and Recommendation [DE 63] recommending that the Motion be granted. Plaintiff filed objections, however, Plaintiff’s objections were untimely by seven days. Plaintiff’s late objections were accompanied by a Motion for Extension of Time. Although the Court notes the late filed objections, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time and considers the objections in light of the intervening Thanksgiving holiday. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations, the objections, and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Upon review, the Court finds the Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and correct. The Court agrees with the analysis in the Report and Recommendations and adopts the conclusions. The Court briefly notes that Plaintiff’s objections raise arguments previously brought before Magistrate Judge Maynard. Plaintiff’s objections are rejected because for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation in which the distinction was made between how punitive damages must be pleaded (which is a matter of federal procedure), and when a Plaintiff may seek an award of punitive damages (which is a matter of state substantive law).1 Florida law does not permit Plaintiff to seek punitive damages against a defendant estate, Lohr v. Byrd, 522 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1988), and Florida law controls and binds this Court. E.g., Toole v. Baster Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000) (using Alabama law to determine whether defendant’s conduct warranted the imposition of punitive damages); Jarzynka v. St. Thomas Univ. of Law, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (applying Florida law when determining the availability of a punitive damages award). For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendations [DE 63] is hereby ADOPTED; 2. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Claim for Punitive Damages [DE 46] is GRANTED; and 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time [DE 71] is GRANTED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, West Palm Beach, Florida, this 27th day of November, 2018. _______________________________ ROBIN L. ROSENBERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to Counsel of Record 1 The substantive law of Florida is applied in this case because the Plaintiff has invoked the diversity jurisdiction of this Court. E.g., Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). 2

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?