Appeals
— Certiorari — Amendment of complaint to assert claim for punitive damages —
Appellate court lacks certiorari jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of
evidence considered by trial court in granting leave to amend complaint to add
claim for punitive damages

SAP AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, vs. ROYAL FLOWERS, INC.,
Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D16-22. L.T. Case No. 12-36407. Opinion
filed March 23, 2016. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court
for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Marin, Judge. Counsel: Squire Patton Boggs LLP,
and Jorge J. Perez; Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, and Gregory J. Star and
Michael J. Miller (Philadelphia, PA), for petitioner. Waldman Trigoboff
Hildebrandt Marx & Calnan, P.A., and Craig J. Trigoboff (Fort Lauderdale),
for respondent.

(Before ROTHENBERG, EMAS, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.)

(ROTHENBERG, Judge.) SAP America, Inc. (“SAP”) petitions
this Court seeking quashal of the trial court’s order granting Royal Flowers,
Inc.’s (“Royal Flowers”) motion for leave to amend its complaint to assert a
claim for punitive damages. Although it is clear that certiorari relief is an appropriate
remedy to challenge a trial court’s order allowing a punitive damages claim to
proceed when the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes
(2015), have not been followed, see Globe Newspaper Co. v. King,
658 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995); Coronado Condo. Ass’n v. La Corte, 103
So. 3d 239, 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), it is equally clear that an appellate court
lacks certiorari jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence
considered by the trial court in granting leave to amend the complaint to add a
claim for punitive damages. Globe, 658 So. 2d at 520; Ross Dress for
Less Virginia, Inc. v. Castro, 134 So. 3d 511, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

The record reflects that after the trial court granted Royal
Flowers’ motion for summary judgment as to its breach of contract claim, Royal
Flowers moved for leave to amend its complaint to seek punitive damages in
connection to its fraud in the inducement claims. The motion was fully briefed
and the trial court conducted a special set hearing where Royal Flowers made an
evidentiary proffer in support of its motion. Thereafter, the trial court
entered an order that was deficient, but later entered a corrected order
granting Royal Flowers’ motion to amend its complaint to add a claim for
punitive damages. In its corrected order, the trial court found that Royal
Flowers had presented “a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive
damages” as “set forth in the Motion and argued at the hearing conducted on
November 4, 2015 and as reflected in the transcript incorporated and adopted
herein.”

Because the trial court complied with the procedural
requirements of section 768.72, and we are not permitted to review the
sufficiency of the evidence on certiorari review, we deny SAP’s petition.

Petition denied.

* *
*