FARAHNAZ GHANDI MCGLOTHIN vs KYLE MCDONALD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 5D23-211 LT Case No. 21-CA-1705 _____________________________ FARAHNAZ GHANDI MCGLOTHIN, Appellant, v. KYLE MCDONALD, Appellee. _____________________________ Nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Virginia Norton, Judge. Christian J. Lake, of Alexander Degance Barnett, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant. Thomas S. Edwards, Jr., and Jennifer L. Reiber, of Edwards & Ragatz, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee. December 8, 2023 EDWARDS, C.J. Appellant, Farahnaz Ghandi McGlothin, appeals the trial court’s order granting Appellee, Kyle McDonald’s, motion to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. We agree that Appellee’s proffer was insufficient to support a claim that Appellant’s placement of concrete blocks that restricted drainage through a common grate constituted intentional misconduct or gross negligence. Appellee proffered nothing to suggest that Appellant had “actual knowledge” of the wrongfulness of her conduct or that there was a high probability that it would result in harm to Appellee. See Werner Enters., Inc. v. Mendez, 362 So. 3d 278, 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023). Furthermore, Appellee’s proposed amended complaint improperly set forth his claim for punitive damages as a stand-alone count. See Keen v. Jennings, 327 So. 3d 435, 438–39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (citing Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So. 3d 1219, 1221 (Fla. 2016) and Varnedore v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741, 745 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)); see also Frugoli v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 464 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Accordingly, we reverse, quash the order permitting Appellee to amend his complaint to seek punitive damages, and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. REVERSED; ORDER QUASHED and REMANDED for further proceedings. BOATWRIGHT, J., concurs. JAY, J., dissents, without opinion. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
