[{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"http:\/\/pkblawfirm.com\/blog\/proposals-for-settlement-in-federal-diversity-actions-dont-forget-rule-1-442\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"http:\/\/pkblawfirm.com\/blog\/proposals-for-settlement-in-federal-diversity-actions-dont-forget-rule-1-442\/","headline":"Proposals for Settlement in Federal Diversity Actions \u2013 Don\u2019t Forget Rule 1.442!","name":"Proposals for Settlement in Federal Diversity Actions \u2013 Don\u2019t Forget Rule 1.442!","description":"It\u2019s well settled that Florida\u2019s offer of judgment statute (section 768.79, Florida Statutes) is substantive law that is applicable to Florida law claims in federal diversity actions. [1]\u00a0But what about rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Surely a state court procedural rule doesn\u2019t apply in federal court, right? Not so fast, my […]","datePublished":"2019-05-22","dateModified":"2025-02-20","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"http:\/\/pkblawfirm.com\/blog\/author\/pkblawfirm\/#Person","name":"Paul Knopf Bigger","url":"http:\/\/pkblawfirm.com\/blog\/author\/pkblawfirm\/","identifier":8,"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/85dcec58e84d2e74317c0a8d76da794f4b6eda79e7e3a160fc6b26b09887306c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/85dcec58e84d2e74317c0a8d76da794f4b6eda79e7e3a160fc6b26b09887306c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Paul Knopf Bigger","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"http:\/\/pkblawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/Logo_PKB-2.svg","url":"http:\/\/pkblawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/Logo_PKB-2.svg","width":600,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"http:\/\/pkblawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/proposals-for-settlement.jpg","url":"http:\/\/pkblawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/proposals-for-settlement.jpg","height":456,"width":875},"url":"http:\/\/pkblawfirm.com\/blog\/proposals-for-settlement-in-federal-diversity-actions-dont-forget-rule-1-442\/","about":["Press"],"wordCount":403,"articleBody":"It\u2019s well settled that Florida\u2019s offer of judgment statute (section 768.79, Florida Statutes) is substantive law that is applicable to Florida law claims in federal diversity actions. [1]\u00a0But what about rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Surely a state court procedural rule doesn\u2019t apply in federal court, right? Not so fast, my friends.The Eleventh Circuit has held that certain portions of rule 1.442 are substantive and applicable to proposals for settlement (\u201cPFS\u201d) served in federal diversity actions. [2]\u00a0Here are the portions that the Eleventh Circuit has held to be substantive:rule 1.442(b)\u2019s requirement that a PFS \u201cto a plaintiff shall be served no earlier than 90 days after the action has been commenced\u201d; [3]\u00a0andrule 1.442(c)(2)(F)\u2019s requirement that a PFS \u201cstate whether the proposal includes attorneys\u2019 fees and whether attorneys\u2019 fees are part of the legal claim.\u201d [4]The court has also stated, in dicta, that rule 1.442(c)(2)(B), which requires a PFS to state that it \u201cresolves all damages that would otherwise be awarded\u201d in the action, is \u201clikely substantive.\u201d [5] In contrast, the court has concluded that rule 1.442(c)(2)(G), requiring a PFS to include a certificate of service in a specific format, is procedural and not applicable.[6]So if you\u2019re serving a PFS in a federal diversity action, be sure to follow the requirements of both section 768.79 and rule 1.442 (to the extent that the requirements do not conflict with the Federal Rules).\u00a0 If you\u2019ve already served a PFS in federal court that failed to follow rule 1.442, there is still hope. In\u00a0Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Co., 202 So. 3d 391, 395-96 (Fla. 2016), the Florida Supreme Court declined to invalidate a party\u2019s PFS \u201csolely for violating a requirement in rule 1.442 that section 768.79 does not require.\u201d\u00a0 Thus, an argument can be made that even if portions of rule 1.442 are substantive and applicable, the failure to follow requirements \u201cthat section 768.79 does not require\u201d should not invalidate a PFS under Florida law.[1]\u00a0Jones v. United Space Alliance, L.L.C., 494 F.3d 1306, 1309 (11th Cir. 2007).[2]\u00a0Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc., 645 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2011).[3]\u00a0Divine Motel Group, LLC v. Rockhill Ins. Co., 722 F. App\u2019x 887, 899-90 (11th Cir. 2018)[4]\u00a0Horowitch, 645 F.3d at 1258.[5]\u00a0Primo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 661 F. App\u2019x 661, 664 n.1 (11th Cir. 2016).[6]\u00a0Horowitch, 645 F.3d at 1258-59 (finding that because the rule conflicted with the federal service rule, it did not apply in federal court)."},{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Blog","item":"http:\/\/pkblawfirm.com\/blog\/#breadcrumbitem"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Proposals for Settlement in Federal Diversity Actions \u2013 Don\u2019t Forget Rule 1.442!","item":"http:\/\/pkblawfirm.com\/blog\/proposals-for-settlement-in-federal-diversity-actions-dont-forget-rule-1-442\/#breadcrumbitem"}]}]