motion for attorneys’ fees based on the proposal for settlement filed by Rebeca Ipox in her individual capacity. In a wrongful death case where there are joint personal representatives, the joint personal representatives are the party plaintiffs. As the party plaintiffs, only the joint personal representatives — acting in that capacity— are entitled to make a valid demand for judgment. The demand for judgment at issue here therefore was invalid. See §§ 768.20, 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2001); Reid, 888 So.2d at 103. Appellees claim that Rebeca Ipox’s act in serving her proposal for settlement should be deemed to be the act of both joint personal representatives. This argument is totally unwarranted. The proposal for settlement expressly stated that it was made by Rebeca Ipox in her 984) (<HOLDING>). In addition, there was no evidence that
recognizing that where representative plaintiff and other members of class share an interest in prevailing on similar legal claims particular differences in amount of damages claimed or of availability of certain defenses against class representative may not render his or her claims atypical holding that the cause of action under fela vests in the personal representative of the estate not in the beneficiaries holding that a copersonal representative could not unilaterally file a notice of appeal without concurrence of the other copersonal representative recognizing that authorized representative may be general or only for a certain claim holding that a a representative plaintiff acts as fiduciary for the others requiring the representative to act in the best interest of class