Arbitration & Mediation

Third District Declines to Enforce Sanctions Because "21 day" Safe Harbor Letter Did Not Comply with 57.105(4)

By Christopher B. Hopkins, Esq.

We discussed a recent Fourth DCA opinion where that court set out some pointers for how to handle enforcement of a Motion for Sanctions under Florida Statute 57.105 (see Law Offices of Ferdie v. Isaacson).

But what about the standards for the motion and 21-day warning letter? The Third District entered the 57.105 fray with Anchor Towing, Inc. and Miguel De Grandy, P.A. v. Florida Department of Transportation and Sunshine Towing, Inc.

In that case, Sunshine's lawyer sent a "detailed letter" to opposing counsel demanding they withdraw certain objections and, if not, Sunrise threatened to file a motion under 57.105. The Opinion (Gersten, Cope and Suarez) did not indicate whether a draft of the Motion was attached to the letter but did state, "the letter that Sunrise's counsel sent... does not meet the mandatory notice requirements of section 57.105(4)." The court went on to point out that this is not the same as the statutorily-required motion which is required to be served on opposing counsel and later filed with the court.

Also of note, filing the motion with the court after the proceedings concluded does not comply with the statute. The order granting the motion was reversed.

For a good primer of Florida Statute 57.105, check out the 2006 Trial Advocate Quarterly article at www.FloridaLawCommentary.com (right column, under "articles").

Full post as published by Florida Arbitration Law on May 27, 2009 (boomark / email).