Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Florida’s Supreme Court finds motions to enlarge do not toll the time to respond unless cause is established.

July 1, 2018
Koppel v. Laura Ochoa, et al., 43 Fla. L. Weekly S225a (Fla. May 17, 2018)

Twenty-nine days after the plaintiff served a proposal for settlement, the defendant filed a motion for enlargement to respond, arguing she did not have the opportunity to review the offer in light of new medical information disclosed by the plaintiff. Before the trial court ruled on the motion for enlargement, but after the 30 days to accept had expired, the defendant accepted the proposal for settlement. The plaintiff then moved to strike the acceptance as untimely. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for enlargement. The district court reversed, finding that rules 1.090 and 1.442 were clear and could not be construed to provide for tolling once a motion to enlarge had been filed.

On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling and stated that, although Rule 1.090 allows for the time period set forth in Rule 1.442 to be enlarged, the trial court has discretion with respect to whether to grant a motion to enlarge. The rule only provides for additional time once cause has been shown. As the court discussed, allowing the time period to be tolled simply by filing a motion to enlarge would provide an automatic period of enlargement and would undermine the rule as written.

This case provides clarification that, generally, motions to enlarge do not toll the time to respond unless cause is established. As such, before filing a motion to enlarge time to respond to a proposal for settlement, or any motion to enlarge time, consider whether cause for an extension of time can be shown. 

 

Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2018

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2018 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Affiliated Attorney

Colynn A. O'Brien
Associate
(407) 420-4409
caobrien@mdwcg.com

Practice Areas

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."