Court Denies Condo Association's Motion to Add Defendant in Design-Defect Lawsuit
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's order denying the Toscano Condominium Association's request to file a fourth amended complaint adding DDA Engineers as defendants. The parties are presently locked in a separate lawsuit.
May 29, 2019 at 03:13 PM
4 minute read
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal has upheld an order by a Miami-Dade Circuit judge denying a Kendall condominium association's request to name an additional defendant in a lawsuit already brimming with parties.
On Wednesday the appellate court affirmed Miami-Dade Circuit Judge William Thomas' order rejecting a request by Toscano Condominium Association Inc. to add Miami-based engineering firm DDA Engineers P.A. to a multi-defendant lawsuit concerning design defects on the property. The opinion found the lower court had not abused its discretion in denying the association's motion to file a modified complaint, and held “the proposed amendment would have been the fourth time the association amended its complaint to bring in new parties to the litigation.”
“Significantly, the latest request to amend came after the case was set for trial and the trial court had specifically set a deadline for bringing in new parties,” the opinion said. According to the appellate court, the association waited to bring claims against DDA Engineers “until more than two years after the filing of the complaint and more than six months after the trial court conducted its case management conference.”
“Litigants must bear some responsibility in diligently pursuing their cases to resolution in a timely manner,” the opinion said. Prior to the association's attempt to name DDA Engineers as a defendant, the company was brought into the dispute by Nichols Brosch Wurst Wolfe & Associates Inc., the Coral Gables architectural firm responsible for the design of the Toscano condos. The appellate court noted the business “faced only indemnity claims from the architect of the condominium building” before further action was sought against them by the association, which later dismissed their claims against all other defendants.
“The association is correct that these are qualitatively different from the direct claims it sought to bring against DDA Engineers in its role as structural engineers and threshold inspectors,” the order said. “However, litigation must end at some point, and trial courts must be afforded the discretion to manage their dockets.”
Read the appellate court's opinion:
DDA Engineers' legal counsel, Oramas & Associates attorney John Oramas, said although the order is not final until the time for motions for rehearing have passed, he and his client are “very pleased” with the appellate panel's findings. He said the outcome was particularly satisfying since the case was in the Complex Business Litigation Division and case management orders “are quite strict in order to move these complex cases more efficiently and without unnecessary delay.”
“Clearly the Third DCA agreed and supported Judge Thomas' ruling which in this case, favored our client,” Oramas said.
However, the appellate court's ruling does not mark the end of litigation between the association and DDA Engineers. A separate lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court in January 2018 charges the company with negligence and breach of contract in failing “to verify that the construction of Toscano complied with governmentally approved plans and specifications,” as well as the Florida Building Code. The complaint contends the condo's defects include, but are not limited to, deficiencies with its “mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire sprinkler, life-safety components” and the property's post-tension cable assemblies. A motion filed by the design company in response to the suit requested the case's dismissal and argued the plaintiff failed to include key documents necessary to commence legal action.
Toscano Condominium Association's attorney, Siegfried, Rivera, Hyman, Lerner, De La Torre, Mars & Sobel shareholder Jason Trauth, told the Daily Business Review the appeal was filed in addition to the distinct lawsuit against DDA Engineers “to protect our client's cause of action.”
“The case is limited to its facts, and a separate action is pending along the same lines,” Trauth said. “The association will be forging ahead with the separate action.”
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigation Begins After Fatal Biscayne Bay Boating Crash
This Could Have Been a Year of a Federal Court Reckoning for Trump. Judges had Other Ideas
8 minute readMuhammad Ali's Daughter Accused of Ignoring South Florida Judge
Florida Law Firms Brace for Category 5 Hurricane Milton
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250