HCBA Lawyer Magazine Vol. 28, No. 3 | Page 24

strategiC ConsiDerations for Post JuDgMent sanCtions Motions
Appellate Practice Section
Chairs: Heather Fesnak - Akerman LLP & Tom Seider - Brannock & Humphries
Litigants should
carefully evaluate
the consequence of
P
ost judgment motions
for sanctions present a
variety of important
strategic considerations
for litigants at both the trial
and appellate levels. One such
consideration is whether and
to what extent the trial court’s
jurisdiction over seemingly
collateral matters may be limited
by the issues raised in a party’s
merits appeal. Two Florida
appellate decisions indicate that
a trial court may lose jurisdiction
over a postjudgment motion for
discovery sanctions if the merits
appeal challenges the propriety of
the underlying discovery rulings.
Generally, a trial court’s
reservation of jurisdiction to
consider a motion for sanctions
or attorneys’ fees does not alter
the finality of a judgment. 1 A
postjudgment order imposing
sanctions or awarding fees
typically constitutes a separate,
appealable final order. 2 These
matters are frequently said to
involve issues collateral to or
independent from the merits of
the case. 3 This is an important
qualification because, ordinarily,
a trial court has no further
jurisdiction over a case once
a final judgment or stipulation
for dismissal is filed. 4 Although
parties should not delay in filing
motions for sanctions based on
prejudgment conduct, a trial
22
a merits appeal on
a post judgment
sanctions motion.
© Can Stock Photo / Gajus
court does necessarily not lose
jurisdiction over those issues
once the final order is entered. 5
Two appellate decisions
indicate that, although collateral
in one sense, an important
connection remains between
these postjudgment motions
for discovery sanctions and the
merits of the case. These decisions
recognize that the filing of a
notice of appeal from a final order
on the merits can divest the trial
court of jurisdiction to consider
the ostensibly collateral sanctions
motion. 6 Specifically, if the issues
raised in the merits appeal are
directly intertwined with an
under lying postjudgment sanctions
motion, the notice of appeal from
the judgment will divest the trial
court of jurisdiction to consider
the motion during the pendency
of the appeal. 7
As a result of this jurisdictional
nuance, litigants should carefully
evaluate the consequence of a
merits appeal on a post judgment
sanctions motion. If resolution
of the motion would reach the
propriety of issues challenged by
a subsequent notice of appeal, the
trial court may have no jurisdiction
to proceed with the motion
until remand. 8
See HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n
for Fremont Home Loan Tr. 2005-B,
Mortgage-Backed Certificates, Series
2005-B v. Buset, 216 So. 3d 701,
703–04 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
2 See id.; Mendoza v. Mendoza,
842 So. 2d 1020, 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA
2003); see also Parrish v. RL Regi Fin.,
LLC, 194 So. 3d 571, 571 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2016).
3 See Giuffre v. Edwards, 226 So.
3d 1034, 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
4 Id.; Amlan, Inc. v. Detroit Diesel
Corp., 651 So. 2d 701, 704 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1995).
5 See Amlan, 651 So. 2d at 705.
6 Publix Super Markets, Inc. v.
Griffin, 837 So.
2d 1139, 1142
(Fla. 2d DCA
2003); Amlan, 651
So. 2d at 705-06.
7 Publix Super
Markets, Inc., 837
So. 2d at 1142.
8 See Amlan,
651 So. 2d at 706.
1
Authors:
Stacy Blank and
Patrick Chidnese
– Holland &
Knight LLP
JAN - FEB 2018
|
HCBA LAWYER