400 North Ashley Drive Suite 1700 Tampa, FL 33602
Call Our Firm Today 813-241-0123

Alexander D. Licznerski, Esq. of Ramey & Kampf, P.A. is published in Florida Law Weekly in Win on Behalf of State Farm

Alexander D. Licznerski, Esq. of Ramey & Kampf, P.A. is published in Florida Law Weekly in Win on Behalf of State Farm

Attorney Alexander D. Licznerski, Esq. of Ramey & Kampf, P.A. was published today in Florida Law Weekly in a procedural win on behalf of State Farm.  Florida Law Weekly is an online legal website that contains the most comprehensive database of Florida circuit and county court cases available.  The database is available online at https://www.floridalawweekly.com/flwonline/

In a case titled Palma Ceia Chiropractic and Wellness Center, LLC a/a/o Kathy Gerson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 21-CC-012154, FLWSUPP2908GERS, Judge Logan Murphy (Hills. Cty. Ct., 2021), the Court found in favor of State Farm striking Plaintiff’s Reply and denying Plaintiff’s Moton for Late Reply.  The Court found that Plaintiff’s Reply contained no additional factual allegations and is therefore insufficient.  The Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion for late reply is it failed to demonstrate any excusable neglect.

Specifically, the Court found that the Plaintiff’s Reply must be stricken because the reply contains no “additional factual allegations” and was therefore deemed insufficient. Buss Aluminum Prods., Inc. v. Crown Window Co., 651 So. 2d 694, 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly D138a]. See Abston v. Bryan, 519 So. 2d 1125, 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (“A reply to an affirmative defense is permitted only in order to allege new facts that may be sufficient to avoid the legal effect of the facts contained in the affirmative defense.”). See generally Moore Meats, Inc. v. Strawn, 313 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1975) (discussing, in reliance on Professor Trawick, when a reply is necessary).

Further, Plaintiff moved to have its Reply deemed timely filed, but the Court stated—”[t]hat circumstance is governed by Rule 1.090(b)(1)(B) and requires the movant to demonstrate ‘excusable neglect.’ But the motion contains no suggestion of excusable neglect, nor does it describe any facts or circumstances that could satisfy Rule 1.090(b)(1)(B). See Madill v. Rivercrest Cmty. Ass’n, Inc., 273 So. 3d 1157, 1160 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) [44 Fla. L. Weekly D1461a]; Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly D1102a].  Therefore Plaintiff’s motion was denied.