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 All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
- 1Middle District of Pennsylvania's U.S. Attorney Announces Resignation
- 2Vinson & Elkins: Traditional Energy Practice Meets Energy Transition
- 3After 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
- 4Trailblazing Pennsylvania Judge Sylvia Rambo Dies at 88
- 5Alston & Bird Matches Market Rate for Associate Bonuses
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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