Torts — Punitive damages — Civil procedure — Amended complaint — Premature request for punitive damages filed before plaintiff sought leave to amend or made evidentiary proffer required by section 768.72(1) is stricken from amended complaint — Demand for attorney’s fees is stricken based on failure of movant to identify statutory or contractual basis for demand — Demand for jury trial is stricken where there is clear, unambiguous, and enforceable waiver of jury trial — Extraneous and immaterial ChatGPT prompt is stricken

SOCIETA IMMOBILIARE LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE TAVERNA COLLECTIONS LLC, Defendant. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. CACE25004078. Division 14. October 9, 2025. N. Hunter Davis, Judge. Counsel: Edward L. Blair, Blair Legal Solutions LLC, Orlando, for Plaintiff. Joshua Feygin, Sue Your Dealer — A Law Firm, Hollywood, for Defendant.ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’SOMNIBUS MOTION TO STRIKE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on October 9, 2025, on Defendant’s Omnibus Motion to Strike (“Motion”) [DE 23] directed to the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. [DE 7]. Edward Bair IV, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Joshua Feygin, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant. The Court, having reviewed the motion, the Defendant’s Response [DE 32], the record, and the arguments of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised, finds as follows:

Through the Motion, Defendant moved to strike certain improper and immaterial portions of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 1.140(f), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion addressed four distinct matters: (1) the premature demand for punitive damages; (2) the statutorily and contractually unsupported demand for attorney’s fees; (3) the improper demand for jury trial despite a written waiver; and (4) the inclusion of an extraneous ChatGPT prompt within the pleading.

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Response at DE No. 32 opposing each distinct request for relief. The Court further notes that Defendant attempted in good faith to resolve the matter prior to filing the Motion, as evidenced by the conferral correspondence attached to the Motion as Exhibit B.

As to the request to strike the demand for punitive damages, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not sought leave or made the evidentiary proffer required by section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes. The statutory right not to be subjected to a claim for punitive damages until the Court finds a reasonable evidentiary basis is well settled law. Holmes v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D328a]; Henn v. Sandler, 589 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Estate of Despain v. Avante Group, Inc., 900 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D813b]. Plaintiff’s Response specifically cites to Fla. Stat. 768.72(1) and acknowledges that leave to amend accompanied with a reasonable evidentiary proffer is required before pleading punitive damages. Response, p. 2. Plaintiff conceded at hearing that the request for punitive damages was premature and that leave must first be obtained. The demand for punitive damages is therefore stricken without prejudice for Plaintiff to properly seek leave and make an appropriate evidentiary showing pursuant to section 768.72, Florida Statutes.

As to the request to strike the demand for attorney’s fees, Defendant argued, and the Court agrees, that under the “American Rule” attorney’s fees may only be awarded when authorized by statute or contract. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla. 1993). Plaintiff identified no such statutory or contractual basis in the Response. When asked at the hearing, Plaintiff conceded that none was pled. The demand for attorney’s fees is therefore stricken.

As to the demand for jury trial, Defendant relied upon the written Buyer’s Order, attached to the Motion as Exhibit A, which contains a clear, unambiguous and enforceable jury trial waiver. There was no dispute that the Plaintiff executed the Buyer’s Order. Plaintiff offered no legal authority to support avoidance of that provision. In light of the complete absence of any legal basis to avoid operation of the provision being identified or advanced by Plaintiff at hearing on the instant Motion, the Court finds that the waiver is valid and enforceable, and the demand for jury trial is stricken accordingly.

As to the inclusion of a ChatGPT prompt within the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that such material is extraneous and immaterial, rendering it a proper subject of a motion to strike under Rule 1.140(f). At the hearing, Plaintiff advanced no argument to the contrary and instead moved ore tenusfor leave to amend to omit the prompt. The Court grants that request solely for the limited purpose of omitting the ChatGPT prompt on page 10 of the amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint consistent with this ruling within ten (10) days.

Finally, Plaintiff’s ore tenus motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order on Defendant’s motion for protective order was not properly noticed and is denied without prejudice.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. Defendant’s Omnibus Motion to Strike is GRANTED in all respects consistent with the Court’s rulings, as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages is STRICKEN without prejudice for Plaintiff to seek leave under section 768.72, Florida Statutes.

b. Plaintiff’s demand for attorney’s fees is STRICKEN.

c. Plaintiff’s demand for jury trial is STRICKEN.

d. Plaintiff’s superflous ChatGPT prompt at page 10 of the Amended Complaint is STRICKEN.

2. Plaintiff’s ore tenus motion for leave to amend is GRANTED, solely as it relates to deletion of the ChatGPT prompt on page 10 of the Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint limited to incorporating that revision within ten (10) days of this Order.

3. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s ore tenus motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order on Defendant’s Motion or Protective Order [DE 49] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.