|
Article Courtesy of The Daily Business Review
By Zach Schlein
Published May 31, 2019
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.” |
|
TOSCANA CONDOMINIUM
|
“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.”
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.” |
