Back to Results

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013395.jpg

Source: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT  •  Size: 0.0 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 85.0%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages 4, was filed for the sole purpose of attempting to intimidate both EDWARDS and EDWARDS’ clients and others into abandoning their legitimate claims against EPSTEIN. APPLICABLE LAW To plead a claim for punitive damages, the claimant must show a “reasonable basis” for the recovery of such damages. See Fla.R.Civ-P. 1.190(f); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995). The showing required to amend is minimal. As stated in State of Wis. Inv. v. Plantation Square Assoc., 761 FB Supp. 1569, 1580 (S.D. Fla.-1991): oe [T] he court-beliéves it must ultimately be a lesser statidard than that required for. 08. summary judgment. Though the burden is on [the plaintiff] to survive a §768.72 challenge of insufficiency, see Will v. Systems Engineering Consultants, 554 So.2d 591, 592 (Fla. 3 DCA’ 1989), the standard of proof required to assert’ Plaintiff's punitive claim must be lower than that needed to survive a summary adjudication on its merits. As the Florida courts have noted, a §768.72 challenge “more closely resembles a motion to dismiss that additionally “requires: an evidentiary proffer and places the burden of persuasion on the plaintiff. Jd In considering a motion to dismiss, factual adjudication is inappropriate as all facts asserted—or here, reasonably established—by the plaintiff are to be taken as true. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, at 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, at 101-102, 2 L.Ed. 2d 80, -1581-at 84.--As such, the court-has given recognition only to those assertions of the defendants which would show Plaintiff's factual bases to be patently false or irrelevant, and has paid no heed whatsoever to the defendants’ alternative evidentiary proffers. State of Wis. Inv., 761 F. Supp. At 1580; see also Dolphin Cove Assn. v. Square D. Co., 616 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“Prejudging the evidence is not a proper vehicle for the court’s denial of the motion to amend” to assert punitive damages claim). HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013395

Document Preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013395.jpg

Click to view full size

Document Details

Filename HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013395.jpg
File Size 0.0 KB
OCR Confidence 85.0%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,099 characters
Indexed 2026-02-04T16:19:21.400177