MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH INC., APPELLANT,
v.
HELEN ECHO HAYDU, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Merrill Lynch appealed a trial court order striking its pleadings and entering default as a sanction for willful and flagrant violations of discovery rules and court orders. The appellate court affirmed the default judgment, holding that the discovery violations were sufficiently egregious and prejudicial to warrant this severe sanction.
The court affirmed the trial court's decision to strike pleadings and enter default as a sanction. The defendant's willful and flagrant discovery violations, spanning nearly three years, combined with the plaintiff's resulting prejudice in preparing her liability case, justified this severe sanction. Liability was determined in favor of the plaintiff by default, and the case proceeded to trial on damages only.
[1] A trial court may strike a defendant's pleadings and enter a default when the defendant willfully and flagrantly violates discovery rules and court orders compelling disc…
[2] Willful and flagrant violation of discovery rules, including failure to produce documents and answer interrogatories despite court orders, can justify striking pleadings…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Defendant, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INCORPORATED, has willfully and flagrantly violated and refused to comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, as they pertain to discovery, and with Orders of the trial court compelling discovery.”
Establishes the basis for the sanction—willful and flagrant discovery violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMerrill Lynch failed to produce a single document pursuant to a Request for Production of Documents dated April 11, 1979, despite multiple court order…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Entry Of Default cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
In its Order Striking Pleadings of Defendant and Entering Default, the trial court found:
1.The Defendant, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INCORPORATED, has willfully and flagrantly violated and refused to comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, as they pertain to discovery, and with Orders of the trial court compelling discovery. For example, in the hearing before this Court, conducted on November 12, 1981, Defendant’s counsel admitted and conceded that not a single document, paper or exhibit has ever been delivered to the Plaintiff or her counsel, pursuant to the Request for Production of Documents of April 11, 1979, despite Orders from the Court compelling production of documents, dated July 2, 1979, November 7, 1979, December 14, 1979 and August 12,1981. With regard to the latest Order from the trial court compelling production, dated August 12,1981, not only was production not made, but Defendant did not request an extension of time for the making of production. Excusable neglect has not been demonstrated by the Defendant. Similarly, the Defendant failed to answer Interrogatories when instructed and ordered by the Court to do so.
2. Plaintiff has been prejudiced, in terms of preparation of the liability portion of her case, by virtue of Defendant’s willful refusal to provide discovery.
3. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions be and the same is hereby granted. The pleadings, including the Answer and Affirmative Defenses, of the Defendant, are stricken, and default is hereby entered against the Defendant, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INCORPORATED.
4. Liability having been determined in favor of the Plaintiff, by virtue of the default provided for herein, this action shall proceed to trial solely on the question of damages, as scheduled on the Court’s two-week jury trial calendar commencing March 15, 1982.
We affirm.
HENDRY, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Strasser, 492 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…lminating in his attorney’s failure to appear at the scheduled pretrial conference. We are not told what the other violations were. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. In Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 413 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the district court set forth in full the findings of the trial court in granting sanctions. This information is most helpful. There, appellant was held to have willfully and flagrantly violated and refused to comply with discover…
-
Vasiliki Zafirakopoulous v. S. Miami Int'l Crabhouse Corp., 513 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…where defendant had repeatedly and willfully violated discovery rules culminating in his attorney’s failure to appear at scheduled pretrial conference), appeal dismissed, 453 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1984); Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 413 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (striking of defendant’s pleadings and entering of default judgment against defendant affirmed where defendant had willfully and flagrantly failed to comply with discovery rules and with court orders compelling discovery). While “…
-
Kleinschmidt v. Gator Off. Supply & Furniture, Inc., 551 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…e point will clearly have the authority to dismiss the action. Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983); European X-Ray Distrib. of America, Inc. v. Saab-Scania Aktiebolag, 414 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., 413 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The final order of dismissal under review is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to impose lesser sanctions against the plaintiff which the trial court, in its discretion, deems appro…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence