On September 15, 2023, the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed the Circuit Court of Duval County’s order, finding that the trial court erred in denying attorney’s fees to the Defendant following a partial summary judgment in her favor, which prompted the Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the remaining action without prejudice. Kuthiala v. Goldman, et al., No. 5D23-121 (Fla. 5th DCA, September 15, 2023).
The Plaintiffs, David M. Goldman and Beth Mayers Goldman, filed a three-count complaint against the Defendant, Dr. Sejal Kuthiala, M.D. During the litigation, Defendant served proposals for settlement to both Plaintiffs pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 768.79, which the Plaintiffs did not accept.
The trial court granted Defendant’s summary judgment motion on the first and third counts of the complaint but denied the motion on the second count. Following the summary judgment rulings, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
Thereafter, the Defendant filed a motion to tax costs and attorney’s fees based on Plaintiffs’ rejection of her proposals for settlement. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees, holding that granting the motion “would be inconsistent with binding authority” under MX Investments v. Crawford, which held that a dismissal without prejudice does not support an award of attorneys’ fees under Section 768.79. 700 So. 2d 640, 641-42 (Fla. 1997). However, in MX Investments, the plaintiff in that case had voluntarily dismissed the entire action, and none of the claims were adjudicated on the merits.
Defendant, Dr. Kuthiala, appealed the denial of the motion. On appeal to the Fifth District, Dr. Kuthiala distinguished MX Investments on the basis that there was an adjudication on the merits for counts one and three of the complaint during the summary judgment hearing. Dr. Kuthiala further argued that the Fifth DCA’s decision in Scherer Construction & Engineering of Central Florida, LLC v. Scott Partnership Architecture, Inc., was the controlling case law and provided support for the reversal of the order denying her request for attorney’s fees. 151 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). In Scherer, the Fifth DCA held that attorney’s fees were not awardable under Section 768.79 for a claim that was voluntarily dismissed. Id. at 530. However, the Scherer court affirmed the portion of the trial court’s order that awarded attorney’s fees on the claim on which the trial court had entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Id.
The Fifth DCA agreed with Dr. Kuthiala position that MX Investments was factually distinguishable from the instant case. The Fifth DCA further agreed that Scherer was binding because the facts were identical. Accordingly, the Fifth DCA reversed the trial court's order denying Dr. Kuthiala’s motion to tax costs and attorneys' fees, remanding for the entry of an order awarding attorney’s fees to Dr. Kuthiala based on counts one and three of the Plaintiffs’ complaint.