Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lago v. Kame By Design, LLCgreen2 sentences2024Rivera Chiropractic, Inc. v. Rosello, 336 So. 3d 409 , 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (citing Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d 73, 74-75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)). 2018See Lago v. Kame by Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d 73, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“[I]f a party files a subsequent or amended motion for sanctions under section 57.105 and raises an argument that was not raised in the original motion for section 57.105 sanctions, the subsequent motion must independently comply with the twenty-one-day ‘safe harbor’ provision of section 57.105(4).”). | 2 | 2 |
HFC Collection Center, Inc. v. Alexandergreen1 sentence2018HFC Collection Ctr., Inc. v. Alexander, 190 So. 3d 1114, 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citing Maxwell Bldg. | 1 | 1 |
Spry v. Professional Employer Plansgreen1 sentence2017See Spry v. Prof'l Emp’r Plans, 985 So.2d 1187, 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that compliance with discovery order to disclose petitioner’s wholly irrelevant financial information in a workers’ compensation claim would cause irreparable harm); cf. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Turkanovic, 2016 WL 7032965 , 204 So.3d 595 (1st DCA Dec. 1, 2016) (granting writ of prohibition and quashing trial court’s order compelling deposition of bank’s corporate representative “in furtherance of [r]espondent’s motion seeking an award of attorney’s fees as a sanction,” where the bank voluntarily dismissed a foreclos | 1 | 1 |
Hampton v. Cale of Fort Myers, Inc.green1 sentence2009In Hampton v. Cale, Inc., 964 So.2d 822, 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the “2002 amendment to section 57.105, which requires twenty-one days’ notice to the non-moving party to withdraw a challenged claim or defense, is not retroactive.” In describing the operation of the amendment, the Hampton court relied on an earlier Fourth District Court of Appeal decision, Maxwell Bldg. | 1 | 1 |
Maxwell Bldg. Corp. v. Euro Concepts, LLCgreen1 sentence2009Corp. v. Euro Concepts, LLC, 874 So.2d 709, 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), which stated that the primary purpose of the safe-harbor provision of section 57.105(4) “is not to spring a procedural trap on the unwary so that valid claims are lost. | 1 | 1 |
Department of Revenue v. Yambertgreen1 sentence2005See Department of Revenue v. Yambert, 883 So.2d 881 , 884 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)(finding that the argument that the moving party failed to comply with the safe harbor provision of section 57.105 was waived for the purposes of appellate review because it was not raised to the trial court); Homestead Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bank of America, N.A. v. Hamdija Turkanovic
neutral
2 sentences2019Fla., Inc. , 207 So.3d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; Bank of America v. Turkanovic , 204 So.3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose sanctions if the case is voluntarily dismissed within the safe harbor period in section 57.105(4), Florida Statutes, and before a motion for sanctions is filed); Town of Davie v. Santana , 98 So.3d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that administrative law judge lacked jurisdiction to award attorney's fees under section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, once the petition was dismissed, the case was closed and no motion for attorney's fe 2019Fla., Inc. , 207 So.3d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; Bank of America v. Turkanovic , 204 So.3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose sanctions if the case is voluntarily dismissed within the safe harbor period in section 57.105(4), Florida Statutes, and before a motion for sanctions is filed); Town of Davie v. Santana , 98 So.3d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that administrative law judge lacked jurisdiction to award attorney's fees under section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, once the petition was dismissed, the case was closed and no motion for attorney's fe | 4 | 2017–2019 |
Jose Gomez-Lujano v. Palm Beach Grill- Houston's etc.
neutral
2 sentences2019Fla., Inc. , 207 So.3d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; Bank of America v. Turkanovic , 204 So.3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose sanctions if the case is voluntarily dismissed within the safe harbor period in section 57.105(4), Florida Statutes, and before a motion for sanctions is filed); Town of Davie v. Santana , 98 So.3d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that administrative law judge lacked jurisdiction to award attorney's fees under section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, once the petition was dismissed, the case was closed and no motion for attorney's fe 2019Fla., Inc. , 207 So.3d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; Bank of America v. Turkanovic , 204 So.3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose sanctions if the case is voluntarily dismissed within the safe harbor period in section 57.105(4), Florida Statutes, and before a motion for sanctions is filed); Town of Davie v. Santana , 98 So.3d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that administrative law judge lacked jurisdiction to award attorney's fees under section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, once the petition was dismissed, the case was closed and no motion for attorney's fe | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Town of Davie v. Santana
green
2 sentences2019Fla., Inc. , 207 So.3d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; Bank of America v. Turkanovic , 204 So.3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose sanctions if the case is voluntarily dismissed within the safe harbor period in section 57.105(4), Florida Statutes, and before a motion for sanctions is filed); Town of Davie v. Santana , 98 So.3d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that administrative law judge lacked jurisdiction to award attorney's fees under section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, once the petition was dismissed, the case was closed and no motion for attorney's fe 2019Fla., Inc. , 207 So.3d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; Bank of America v. Turkanovic , 204 So.3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose sanctions if the case is voluntarily dismissed within the safe harbor period in section 57.105(4), Florida Statutes, and before a motion for sanctions is filed); Town of Davie v. Santana , 98 So.3d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that administrative law judge lacked jurisdiction to award attorney's fees under section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, once the petition was dismissed, the case was closed and no motion for attorney's fe | 3 | 2019–2019 |
ANTHONY FANTAUZZI v. JAMES C. DAY AND JOHN P. FLECK
green
1 sentence2024And "a trial court commits reversible error when it grants a motion for sanctions that fails to comply with the safe harbor provision in section 57.105(4)." Fantauzzi v. Fleck, 385 So. 3d 1098 , 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (citing Rivera Chiropractic, Inc. v. Rosello, 336 So. 3d 409 , 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
LAW OFFICES OF FRED C. COHEN, P.A. v. H.E.C. CLEANING, LLC.
neutral
1 sentence2021Cleaning, LLC, 290 So. 3d 76 , 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), we receded from Matte and instead held “that rule 2.516’s e-mail service requirements do not apply to service of a section 57.105 safe harbor notice.” Accordingly, pursuant to Wheaton and Law Offices of Fred C. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Matte v. Caplan
green
2 sentences2020In support of the motion to strike, the new attorney relied upon this court’s decision in Matte v. Caplan, 140 So. 3d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), which held that service of a section 57.105 safe harbor notice must strictly comply with rule 2.516’s e-mail service requirements. 2020The circuit court granted the new attorney’s motion to strike the law firm’s section 57.105 motion because, pursuant to this court’s decision in Matte v. Caplan, 140 So. 3d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), the law firm’s section 57.105 safe harbor notice did not comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516’s e-mail service requirements. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Estimable v. Prophete
neutral
2 sentences2020Therefore, we have decided this case en banc to recede from Matte and Estimable v. Prophete, 219 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (which followed Matte), and instead hold that rule 2.516’s e-mail service requirements do not apply to service of a section 57.105 safe harbor notice. 2020Therefore, we have decided this case en banc to recede from Matte and Estimable v. Prophete, 219 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (which followed Matte), and instead hold that rule 2.516’s e-mail service requirements do not apply to service of a section 57.105 safe harbor notice. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sandra Kent Wheaton v. Mardella Wheaton
green
2 sentences2020According to law firm, the new attorney’s reliance on this court’s decision in Matte was misplaced because the Florida Supreme Court, in Wheaton v. Wheaton, 261 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 2019), expressly disapproved Matte. 2020Our supreme court, in Wheaton v. Wheaton, 261 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 2019), expressly disapproved Matte’s holding that a section 57.105 safe harbor notice must comply with rule 2.516’s e-mail service requirements. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Pino v. Bank of New York
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 43 . 2016The court went on to consider the twenty-one-day safe harbor provision of section 57.105(4) and held that [i]f the plaintiff does not file a notice of voluntary dismissal or withdraw the offending pleading within twenty-one days of a defendant’s request for sanctions under section 57.105, the defendant may file the sanctions motion with the trial court, whereupon the trial court will have continuing jurisdiction to resolve the pending motion and to award attorney’s fees under that provision if appropriate, regardless of the plaintiffs subsequent dismissal. 121 So.3d at 42-43 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Homestead Ins. Co. v. POOLE, MASTERS & GOLDS.
green
1 sentence2005Co. v. Poole, Masters & Goldstein, C.P.A., 604 So.2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(finding that various arguments made on appeal against section 57.105 attorney's fees were not properly preserved because the party against whom the fees were assessed never responded to the motion for fees). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
BAY FINANCIAL SAV. BANK. FSB v. Hook
green
1 sentence2003Cf. Olson v. Potter, 650 So.2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (complaint alleging breach of settlement agreement was merely an attempt to relitigate issues raised in postjudgment proceedings in underlying litigation and, thus, defense was entitled to attorney’s fees after prevailing on affirmative defense of res judicata); Bay Financial Savings Bank, F.S.B. v. Hook, 648 So.2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (fifing of law suit that is nonjusticiable on its face offers appropriate setting for fulfilment of section 57.105’s purpose to deter misuse of the judicial system). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.