P & L FLORIDA INVESTMENT, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MARIO FERRO AND SANTIAGO ALVAREZ, 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.
P & L Florida Investment appeals the dismissal of its case as a sanction for discovery violations. The court reversed, holding that dismissal was an excessive sanction where there was no evidence of bad faith and the appellant did not receive adequate notice of the sanctions hearing.
Dismissal was too severe a sanction for a single discovery violation unsupported by evidence of bad faith, willful disregard, or gross indifference. The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a continuance where the appellant received only one day's notice of a hearing requiring travel from West Palm Beach to Miami.
[1] Dismissal of a case is an excessive sanction for a discovery violation absent evidence of bad faith, willful disregard, or gross indifference to a court order.
[2] A one-day notice for a hearing scheduled in a different city is unreasonable, particularly when opposing counsel's office is located a significant distance away.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Where only a single order on a motion to compel discovery had been entered by the court, and there was no evidence to support a finding of bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to the court's order, dismissal of the case was too severe a sanction for the violation.”
Establishes the governing legal standard that dismissal is an excessive sanction absent evidence of bad faith or willful disregard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceP & L Florida Investment violated a single discovery order. The trial court scheduled a motion for sanctions hearing in Miami on Tuesday, May 17. Appe…
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 Reasonable Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Where only a single order on a motion to compel discovery had been entered by the court, and there was no evidence to support a finding of bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to the court’s order, dismissal of the case was too severe a sanction for the violation. De Trujillo v. Dominguez, 532 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1987).
Furthermore, we disapprove of the action of appellee’s Miami counsel of mailing notice to opposing counsel in West Palm Beach on Wednesday, May 11, for a hearing on a motion for sanctions scheduled in Miami on Tuesday, May 17. The one-day actual notice to appear, as complained of, was unreasonable in light of the distance from appellant counsel’s office to the courthouse. See H. Trawick, Tramck’s Florida Practice and Procedure § 9-7 (1987 ed.) (notice must be served in reasonable time before hearing; one day notice is not reasonable).
On receiving notice, appellant immediately telephoned the court requesting a continuance due to the late notice and a schedule conflict. The refusal of the trial court to grant an extension, under the circumstances, and its concomitant dismissal of the action, constituted an abuse of discretion. Donner v. Smith, 517 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (trial court’s order of dismissal reversed where plaintiff did not receive adequate notice of the hearing for alleged discovery violations).
The cause is reversed with instructions to reinstate the complaint, reschedule the hearing on the motion for sanctions and, if appropriate, to consider the imposition of lesser sanctions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1989)…F.L.W. 946 (Fla. 1st DCA April 14, 1989) (opinion temporarily withdrawn, 14 F.L.W. 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA April 19, 1989)). As noted in Cole, gain-time is not for the courts but for the Department of Corrections to determine. See also Cummings v. State, 545 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Thompson v. State, 478 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (the judicial system never has control over gain-time). Thus, even though the court does not give Green credit for the gain-time, this is not determinative of whether the Depa…
-
Gussie Anderson and Earleen James v. SUN Tr. Bank/North, 679 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…67 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (notice of hearing of deposition served one day before hearing insufficient particularly where recipient of notice lived in a city other than city in which hearing was to be held); P & L Florida Inv. Inc. v. Ferro, 545 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (mailed notice of hearing on May 11th to counsel in West Palm Beach for hearing on motion for sanctions scheduled in Miami on May 17th insufficient). See also Somerville v. Reusser, 649 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (notice of te…
-
Torres v. ONE Stop Maint. & Mgmt., Inc., 178 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…la.2000) (twenty-four hours’ notice for a termination of parental rights proceeding is unreasonable); Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So. 2d 905, 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (two days’ notice insufficient for civil contempt hearing); P & L Fla. Inv., Inc. v. Ferro, 545 So. 2d 448, 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (six days’ notice in advance of a hearing is unreasonable); Montgomery v. Cribb, 484 So. 2d 73, 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (two days’ notice of a hearing on a motion to strike is unreasonable). Due process is precisely why Florid…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Donner v. Smith, 517 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- del Prado v. Robert K. Estes, P.A., 532 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)