Melendez v. Eversole, 263 So. 3d 1140 (2019)

Feb. 18, 2019 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District · No. 1D18-3534

263 So. 3d 1140

Juan Ricardo Jackson MELENDEZ and Jessica Santo Rivera, Petitioners,
v.
Donald Deland EVERSOLE and Michele Marie Eversole, His Wife, Respondents.

No. 1D18-3534

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 18, 2019

Paul M. Eza and Michael L. Glass of Stone, Glass & Connolly, LLP, Jacksonville, for Petitioners.

Benjamin E. Richard, Curry G. Pajcic, and William A. Bald of Pajcic & Pajcic, P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondents.

Per Curiam.

Petitioners seek certiorari review of the order allowing Respondents to amend their counterclaim to assert a claim for punitive damages. In such a proceeding, the scope of our review is limited to determining whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes. We, conversely, lack "jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence proffered to support the punitive damages claim." Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Smith , 263 So.3d 133, 2018 WL 5915019 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 13, 2018) (citing Globe Newspaper Co. v. King , 658 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995) and additional cases). Because the trial court complied with the applicable procedural requirements, the petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED .

Wolf, Osterhaus, and Jay, JJ., concur.