HZJ, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES P. WYSOCKI, 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.
HZJ, Inc. appeals a trial court order dismissing its counterclaim and striking its answer and affirmative defenses as sanctions for discovery abuse. The appellate court affirmed, finding the severe sanctions were justified by the defendant's pattern of willful non-compliance with court orders and deliberate obstruction of the discovery process.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanctions. The sanctions were appropriate and fully justified based on HZJ, Inc.'s documented pattern of willful non-compliance with court discovery orders, bad faith conduct, and deliberate obstruction of the orderly discovery process.
[1] An order dismissing a counterclaim is a final appealable order.
[2] An order striking a party's answer and affirmative defenses is an appealable interlocutory order.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Defendant/Counterclaimant, HZJ, INC., has willfully disregarded the sanctity of Florida Statutes and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and has acted in deliberate and contumacious disregard of the Court's authority by thwarting the discovery process and this Court's Orders requiring the production of documentation and witnesses in this cause.”
Establishes the trial court's finding that HZJ engaged in willful disregard and contumacious conduct violating discovery orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHZJ, Inc. repeatedly disregarded court orders requiring production of documentation and witnesses in discovery. The trial court found the defendant en…
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 Contumacious Disregard Of Court Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant HZJ, Inc. from a trial court order dismissing its counterclaim and striking its answer and affirmative defenses. We treat the appeal as one taken from (1) an appealable final order as to the counterclaim dismissal, and (2) an appealable interlocutory order under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) as to the striking of the answer and affirmative defenses. We affirm.
The stated basis for the trial court’s order was as follows:
“Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and statements as to the Court files and records, the Court concludes that:
a. Defendant/Counterclaimant, HZJ, INC., has willfully disregarded the sanctity of Florida Statutes and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and has acted in deliberate and contumacious disregard of the Court’s authority by thwarting the discovery process and this Court’s Orders requiring the production of documentation and witnesses in this cause.
b. The repeated Orders of this Court which withheld the imposition of sanctions on Defendant HZJ, INC., which permitted Plaintiff to move for the imposition of sanctions, which would include the striking of pleadings, based upon the failure and refusal and callous disregard of Defendant in complying with said Orders, justifies the imposition of sanctions at this time as requested by Plaintiff.
c. Defendant has embarked upon and travelled down a path of intentional delay and abuse of the judicial system in clear violation of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and in particular this Court’s Orders as set forth in the findings of fact. Striking the pleadings and Dismissing the Counterclaim of Defendant/Counterclaimant, pursuant to Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.380(b)(2)(C) is an appropriate response by this Court to the intentional delay and abuse of the system for the willful refusal to comply with the Orders pertaining to discovery in this cause.”
R. 248-49.
The defendant HZJ, Inc. urges that the trial court abused its discretion in entering this order because it was punished too severely for matters beyond its control. We cannot agree. The trial court’s order sets out a detailed course of conduct by the defendant which fully supports the trial court’s conclusions. Plainly, the defendant
engaged in bad faith “games playing” with the court and opposing counsel in delaying and thwarting the orderly process of discovery in this cause. The sanctions complained of were imposed after fair warning to the defendant and were fully justified in this record. Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983); A.H. Robins Co. v. Dever-ecmx, 415 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 426 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1983); Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Watson v. Peskoe, 407 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. Strobl, 864 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See HZJ, Inc. v. Wysocki, 511 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). SHARP, W., PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Latham v. Lawson, 526 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983); HZJ, Inc. v. Wysocki, 511 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Watson v. Peskoe, 407 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Freeman v. Humana, Inc., 501 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 298 (Fla.1987).…
-
Scott G. Kranz and IMG v. Levan, 602 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…CA 1990); Gomez v. Pujols, 546 So. 2d 734 (Fla.3d DCA 1989); Dominguez v. Wolfe, 524 So. 2d 1101 (Fla.3d DCA 1988); F. Food Co. v. Hart Properties, Inc., 515 So. 2d 279 (Fla.3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 523 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1988); HZJ, Inc. v. Wysocki, 511 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); First Overseas Inv. Corp. v. Dantas, 509 So. 2d 987 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); McMillian v. State, Dep’t of Corrections, 506 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); Far Out Music, Inc. v. Jordan, 502 So. 2d 523 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); Freeman v. Humana…
Authorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Watson v. Peskoe, 407 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- A. H. Robins Co., Inc. v. Devereaux, 415 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)