F. FOOD COMPANY, INC., D/B/A LE PETIT QUEBEC, LE PETIT QUEBEC, INC., ROLAND CLOUTIER AND MARIETTE CLOUTIER, APPELLANTS,
v.
HART PROPERTIES, INC., D/B/A THE CASTAWAYS MOTEL, AND JOSEPH HART, APPELLEES
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.
F. Food Company and related parties appealed a trial court's dismissal of their action against Hart Properties for failure to comply with pretrial orders. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the severe sanction of default based on the parties' pattern of willful and intentional non-compliance with discovery and pretrial orders over seven years.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. The court was entitled to interpret the parties' repeated failures to comply with discovery and pretrial orders as willful and intentional, justifying the severe sanction of default and dismissal.
[1] A trial court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with pretrial orders, especially when such noncompliance is consistent with a history of lack of due diligence a…
[2] Repeated failures to comply with discovery and pretrial orders may be interpreted by the trial court as willful and intentional, justifying the severe sanction of dismiss…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 failure to comply "is consistent with the entire history of this cause which indicates a lack of due diligence and a failure to prosecute this cause to trial and judgment...."”
The trial court's stated rationale for dismissal based on the pattern of non-compliance throughout the seven-year litigation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe cause of action was filed in June 1979. Over the following seven years, the parties and their counsel repeatedly failed to comply with trial court…
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 Failure To Prosecute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek reversal of a final order of the Circuit Court for Dade County dismissing their action against appellees for failure to comply with the court’s pretrial order. The court stated in its order of dismissal that the failure to comply “is consistent with the entire history of this cause which indicates a lack of due diligence and a failure to prosecute this cause to trial and judgment....”
The cause of action was initially filed in June, 1979. The record shows that for the next seven years there were numerous failures by the parties and their counsel to comply with orders of the trial court relating to discovery and further, that the court, sua sponte, set the matter for trial and ordered a pretrial conference after a two-year period of very little activity in the case. The pretrial conference order also set forth final deadlines for filing of pretrial documents, which the order stated must be strictly complied with and which the parties failed to meet.
In their motion for rehearing, which was denied, and on appeal, appellants argue that the order of dismissal was too severe a sanction and constituted an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
Having carefully reviewed the record in the light of the controlling principles of law, we have concluded that the trial judge “was entitled to interpret [the parties’] repeated failures to comply with discovery [and pretrial] orders as willful and intentional, justifying the severe sanction of default.” Morales v. Perez, 445 So. 2d 393, 394 (Fla. 3d DCA), cause dismissed, 453 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1984). Accordingly, no abuse of the trial court’s discretion having been demonstrated, see Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983); Erie Winds, N.V. v. Crab Pot Oceanside, Inc., 449 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Henry A. Knott Co. v. Redington Towers, Inc., 428 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Perez, 445 So. 2d at 394, the order of dismissal under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lahti v. Porn, 624 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…252 So. 2d 379, 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); World on Wheels of Miami Inc. v. Int’l Auto Motors, Inc., 569 So. 2d 836, 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Epps v. Hartley, 495 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). See also F. Food Company, Inc. v. Hart Properties, Inc., 515 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 523 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1988). In Michniak v. Michniak, 601 So. 2d 1305, 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), this court reversed a dismissal with prejudice in a dissolution action because there was no finding of a “willful” failu…
-
Arango v. Alvarez, 585 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…attern of disobeying and/or ignoring the earlier orders entered by the Court, as being willful and intentional, thereby justifying the entry of a default. See Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983); F Food Company, Inc. v. Hart Properties, Inc., 515 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 523 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1988); Morales v. Perez, 445 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA), cause dismissed, 453 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1984); A.H. Robins Co., Inc. v. Devereaux, 415 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 426 So. 2d…
-
Sienkiewicz v. Aqua Lift, Inc., 586 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…pretrial order, the court could have limited appellant to the plaintiff’s witnesses and exhibits. This does not seem to be a case where a party has repeatedly and consistently failed to obey court orders. See F. Food Co., Inc. v. Hart Props., Inc., 515 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 523 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1988). We wish to emphasize that our holding is clearly limited to the facts in this case, and should not be interpreted as either a license for attorneys or pro se litigants to ignore pretrial o…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Waldemar Morales v. Edelma Perez, 445 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Cowart v. State, 428 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Vuolo v. Vuolo, 449 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Erie Winds v. Crab POT Oceanside, Inc., 449 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)