Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages in Edwards v. Epstein

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 standard than that required for. e028... 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 Plaintiffs 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