Florida Statute 68.084 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 68
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 68.084

68.084 Rights of the parties in civil actions.—

(1) If the department, on behalf of the state, proceeds with the action, it has the primary responsibility for prosecuting the action, and is not bound by any act of the person bringing the action. The person bringing the action has the right to continue as a party to the action, subject to the limitations specified in subsection (2).

(2)(a) The department may at any point voluntarily dismiss the action notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action.

(b) Subject to s. 17.04, nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the authority of the department or the qui tam plaintiff to compromise a claim brought in a complaint filed under this act if the court determines, after a hearing, that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under all the circumstances.

(c) Upon a showing by the department that unrestricted participation during the course of the litigation by the person initiating the action would interfere with or unduly delay the department’s prosecution of the case, or would be repetitious, irrelevant, or for purposes of harassment, the court may, in its discretion, impose limitations on the person’s participation, including, but not limited to:

1. Limiting the number of witnesses the person may call;

2. Limiting the length of the testimony of the person’s witnesses;

3. Limiting the person’s cross-examination of witnesses; or

4. Otherwise limiting the participation by the person in the litigation.

(d) Upon a showing by the defendant that unrestricted participation during the course of the litigation by the person initiating the action would be for purposes of harassment or would cause the defendant undue burden or unnecessary expense, the court may limit the participation by the person in the litigation.

(3) If the department elects not to proceed with the action, the person who initiated the action has the right to conduct the action. If the Attorney General, as head of the department, or the Chief Financial Officer, as head of the Department of Financial Services, so requests, it shall be served with copies of all pleadings and motions filed in the action along with copies of all deposition transcripts at the requesting department’s expense. When a person proceeds with the action, the court, without limiting the rights of the person initiating the action, may nevertheless permit the department to intervene and take over the action on behalf of the state at a later date upon showing of good cause.

(4) Regardless of whether the department proceeds with the action, upon a showing by the department that certain actions of discovery by the person initiating the action would interfere with an investigation by the state or the prosecution of a criminal or civil matter arising out of the same facts, the court may stay such discovery for a period of not more than 60 days. Such a showing shall be conducted in camera. The court may extend the 60-day period upon a further showing in camera by the department that the criminal or civil investigation or proceeding has been pursued with reasonable diligence and any proposed discovery in the civil action will interfere with an ongoing criminal or civil investigation or proceeding.

(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(b), the state may elect to pursue its claim through any available alternate remedy, including any administrative proceeding to determine a civil money penalty. If any such alternate remedy is pursued in another proceeding, the person initiating the action shall have the same rights in such proceeding as the person would have had if the action had continued under this section. Any finding of fact or conclusion of law made in such other proceeding that has become final shall be conclusive on all parties to an action under this section. For purposes of this subsection, a finding or conclusion is final if it has been finally determined on appeal to the appropriate court, if all time for filing such an appeal with respect to the finding or conclusion has expired, or if the finding or conclusion is not subject to judicial review.

(6) The Department of Financial Services, or the department, may intervene on its own behalf as a matter of right.

History.—s. 4, ch. 94-316; s. 104, ch. 2003-261; s. 4, ch. 2007-236; s. 5, ch. 2013-104.

F.S. 68.084 on Google Scholar

F.S. 68.084 on Casetext

Amendments to 68.084

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 68.084

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 68.084.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 68.084

Total Results: 12

& SC13-2422 Gerhard Hojan v. State of Florida & Gerhard Hojan v. Julie L. Jones, etc.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-01-31

Citation: 212 So. 3d 982

Snippet: the requirements of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 84 (1985). This subclaim is procedurally barred because

Zoltan Barati v. State of Florida, Motorola, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-02-22

Citation: 198 So. 3d 69

Snippet: right to dismiss the action on authority of section 68.084(2)(a), notwithstanding any objections that Barati

& SC13-2422 Gerhard Hojan v. State of Florida and Gerhard Hojan v. Julie L. Jones, etc.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-09-03

Snippet: with the requirements of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 84 (1985). This subclaim is procedurally barred because

State of Florida v. Zoltan Barati and Motorola, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-10-06

Citation: 150 So. 3d 810

Snippet: conduct the action.” §§ 68.083(2), (3) and (6), and 68.084(1) and (3), Fla. Stat. The State may later be permitted

Stewart v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-05-27

Citation: 37 So. 3d 243, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 287, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 803, 2010 WL 2104125

Snippet: Mental Health Experts In Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 84, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), the United

Myers v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-01-29

Citation: 866 So. 2d 103, 2004 WL 221274

Snippet: the correct interpretation of a statute. Section 68.084(2)(b) is modeled after 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(B)

Glancy v. First Western Bank

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-12-26

Citation: 802 So. 2d 498, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 18280, 2001 WL 1644679

Snippet: and Indispensable Parties, 18 U. of Miami, L.R. 68, 84 (emphasis added). 456 So.2d at 558. The court in

Phillips v. Choate

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1984-09-26

Citation: 456 So. 2d 556

Snippet: and Indispensable Parties, 18 U. of Miami, L.R. 68, 84 (emphasis added). See also 7 Wright & Miller, Federal

Markham v. Friedland

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1971-02-19

Citation: 245 So. 2d 645

Snippet: as `omitted property'. Attorney General Opinions 068-84, 064-139; 84 C.J.S., Taxation, Section 508, page

Bogan v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1969-08-15

Citation: 226 So. 2d 110, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5227

Snippet: McNULTY, Judge. Willie F. Bogan, jointly tried with a co-defendant, Willie Jack Henderson, was convicted of felony murder committed in the perpetration of a robbery. The jury recommended mercy and appellant was sentenced accordingly. He directly appeals the judgment and sentence. Appellant raises seven points on appeal. We have carefully reviewed the voluminous record in the light of the law involved in all seven points, and conclude that only one point merits discussion. This point raises the question

Jenkins Trucking, Inc. v. Emmons

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1968-07-02

Citation: 212 So. 2d 55, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5245

Snippet: PER CURIAM. Jenkins Trucking, defendant in the trial court, appeals from a final judgment entered by the trial court during the course of a jury trial after Emmons, the plaintiff-appellee, had abandoned certain portions of his claim and before the defendant-appellant had presented its case. We affirm. The parties had fourteen agreements for the leasing of trucks. Emmons was the lessor and Jenkins Trucking the lessee. Emmons’s amended complaint contained a prayer for money due him under the fourteen

Jenkins Trucking, Inc. v. Emmons

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1968-02-13

Citation: 207 So. 2d 280, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5886

Snippet: CHARLES CARROLL, Chief Judge. This matter is before us on a petition of the appellee, under Rule 5.10 F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., to review a supersedeas order. On December 20, 1967, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff-appellee Clarence R. Emmons against the defendant-appellant Jenkins Trucking, Inc., for damages and costs in the aggregate sum of $45,880.73, on which issuance of execution was authorized. On January 25, 1968, the defendant filed a notice of appeal, and moved the trial court for