Tommie DePrima and Tom Paradise (Hollywood, FL) (Appellate) previously obtained a Summary Judgment ruling in favor of the Defendant in a case involving the alleged sexual abuse of a minor female student by her school coach, over a two-year period. The student brought a lawsuit alleging negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The student’s mother made a corresponding claim for loss of filial consortium. Upon deposing the Plaintiff, defense counsel confirmed that the alleged abuse had ended more than four years prior to the Plaintiff bringing the lawsuit. As such, defense counsel argued that because the Plaintiff had brought the lawsuit when the four-year statute of limitation had expired, Summary Judgment was proper as to all claims related to the alleged abuse. In response thereto, the Plaintiffs argued that while the sexual contact had ended over four years before the Complaint was filed, under the continuing torts doctrine the ‘improper relationship’ (which was not limited to the sexual contact) continued beyond the final sexual encounter. Plaintiffs also attempted to argue that based upon their negligent retention claim, and the fact that the coach was not terminated until a year after the relationship had been known, that the statute of limitations had not run out at the time of the filing of the lawsuit. Prior to the Court’s ruling on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs demanded $1,000,000 to settle the instant claim. The Court thereafter granted the Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment as to all claims.
Appellate Update: The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal before the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and argued that the continuing torts doctrine should apply. The Plaintiffs also attempted to argue that the judge who presided over the summary judgment motion should have recused himself due to potential conflicts and/or bias that the judge may have had with Plaintiff’s counsel. The appellate court affirmed the lower’s court’s ruling on all issues. Plaintiff’s petition to the Florida Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of this case was also denied. The Defendant is currently seeking all its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the case given the Plaintiff’s denial of a previously filed proposal for settlement.