RICHARD WALDMAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF BRYCE WALDMAN, DECEASED, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CELLAR DOOR CONCERTS SOUTH, INC., ET AL., 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.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of relief from judgment where a defendant corporation was dismissed based on incomplete discovery responses. The court held that appellants were entitled to relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) because defendants improperly withheld discovery information that would have prevented the dismissal.
The court reversed and held that appellants were entitled to relief from judgment because defendants' failure to timely disclose discovery information about Surf's ownership interest constituted grounds for relief under Rule 1.540(b). The incomplete discovery responses, coupled with defendants' objections claiming the information had already been provided, prevented appellants from obtaining critical information before the dismissal motion was heard.
[1] A trial court's denial of a petition for relief from judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) may be reversed when discovery was improperly withheld,…
[2] A party's failure to provide discovery regarding ownership interests can prevent the timely disclosure of information necessary to oppose a motion to 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“Appellants' interrogatories required disclosure of the ownership interests of Surf and JJB in the Ballroom but defendants' objections, claiming that this information had already been received from Boyle's deposition, kept the information from appellants until after the motion to dismiss Surf had been heard.”
Establishes that defendants improperly withheld discovery information critical to the dismissal decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBryce Waldman died in an accident in the parking lot of the Agora Ballroom allegedly owned by Surf Productions, Inc. (Surf) and JJB & D.H. W., Inc. (J…
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 Discovery Abuse cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
Respondent’s motion for rehearing is granted in part. The opinion dated January 11, 1989 is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted therefor. We reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition for relief from judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Appellant’s decedent died as a result of an accident which occurred in the parking lot of the Agora Ballroom (Ballroom) which was allegedly owned by defendants, Surf Productions, Inc. (Surf), a dissolved Florida corporation, and J.J.B. & D.H.W., Inc. (JJB) along with two other corporations not involved in this appeal. Appellants filed a wrongful death action against Surf and JJB and in August of 1987 they filed an amended complaint alleging that the Ballroom was owned and operated by Surf together with other named defendants. The complaint alleged that Surf had involuntarily dissolved subsequent to the accrual of appellants’ cause of action. JJB filed a motion to dismiss and strike in which it claimed that Surf had been dissolved prior to the accident and that no cause of action could be brought against it. Appellants did not oppose the motion to dismiss allegedly because a principal of JJB (Boyle) had testified in deposition that, although Surf had once owned twenty percent of the Ballroom, he did not believe it (Surf) had any interest in the property at the time of the accident. After the defendants filed the motion to dismiss but before the hearing on the motion appellants propounded interrogatories to the defendants seeking specific information concerning the nature of each owner’s interest in the Ballroom on the date of the accident. Appellants also moved to produce documents reflecting the relative ownership interests of the defendants. JJB objected to those interrogatories, stating:
This defendant has been deposed on that same subject (ownership of the Ballroom) on two previous occasions by two different plaintiff’s attorneys. These interrogatories represent the third time that the same topic has been covered by plaintiffs in this lawsuit. These interrogatories constitute an abuse of the discovery procedures and are harassing.
Appellants claim that they did not oppose the dismissal of the lawsuit based upon Boyle’s deposition testimony and the insistence of defense counsel that Boyle had already answered the questions concerning the ownership of the Ballroom. Surf productions was dismissed from the case.
In continuing discovery efforts, appellants brought a motion to compel discovery which the court granted. The answers to the interrogatories revealed that Surf did own twenty percent of the Ballroom on the night of the accident. The trial court denied appellant’s motion for rehearing and for 1.540(b) relief from the order dismissing the action against Surf.
Appellants’ interrogatories required disclosure of the ownership interests of Surf and JJB in the Ballroom but defendants’ objections, claiming that this information had already been received from Boyle’s deposition, kept the information from appellants until after the motion to dismiss Surf had been heard. Appellees’ argument that the deponent gave equivocal answers concerning the ownership of Surf and informed appellants that corporate counsel would have more precise information concerning ownership of the Ballroom does not overcome the fact that the ownership would have been revealed prior to the dismissal of Surf but for appellees’ failure to give discovery.
Therefore we reverse the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for 1.540 relief and remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to grant appellants a rehearing on Surf Production, Inc.’s motion to dismiss.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur.