Koppel v. Ochoa
Resolving certified conflict, the Florida Supreme Court held that filing a motion under Rule 1.090 to enlarge the time to accept a proposal for settlement does not automatically toll the 30-day acceptance deadline of Rule 1.442(f)(1) and section 768.79. The defendant's acceptance 90 days after service — filed while an unresolved motion to enlarge was pending — was untimely, so no settlement was formed. The Court approved Ochoa v. Koppel and disapproved Goldy v. Corbett Cranes, and rejected prospective-only application.
📄 Read the official opinion (FL Supreme Court) →
Florida Court Tracker flags decisions like this the week they come down, sorted by practice area, alongside your research platform. See what else changed in Offer of Judgment / PFS →
Key facts
- Defendant Ochoa filed a proposal for settlement under Florida Statute section 768.79, which plaintiff Koppel had 30 days to accept under Rule 1.442(f)(1).
- Koppel filed a motion under Rule 1.090 to enlarge the time to accept the proposal but did not obtain a ruling or the defendant's agreement before the 30-day deadline expired.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a definitive, statewide rule for proposal-for-settlement practice under section 768.79 and Rule 1.442: an offeree must secure either the offeror's written agreement or a court order enlarging the acceptance… — full analysis with a trial
Get decisions like this in your practice area every week: free for 14 days
The rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Your practice areas first
- Plain-English holdings & why it matters
- Statutes & rules that take effect in your area
- One Friday briefing for your team
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.