STEPHEN H. ROSE AND CONSOLIDATED DYEING, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES J. CLINTON, III, 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.
Rose and Consolidated Dyeing appealed a judgment awarding damages to shareholder Clinton based on discovery sanctions imposed for non-compliance with accounting orders. The court affirmed the finding that Clinton was a shareholder entitled to an accounting but reversed the sanctions and damages award, finding the trial court abused its discretion by imposing severe sanctions without a proper finding of willful and deliberate disregard.
The trial court abused its discretion in imposing severe sanctions absent a finding that the conduct was equivalent to willfulness or deliberate disregard of discovery orders. The sanctions and damages judgment are reversed and remanded for a hearing to determine whether willful and deliberate refusal to obey the discovery orders is established.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by imposing severe discovery sanctions without a finding that the non-compliance was willful or in deliberate disregard of court order…
[2] A trial court may reinstate discovery sanctions and a judgment awarding damages upon a finding of willful and deliberate refusal to obey a discovery order.
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 trial court abused its discretion in imposing severe sanctions for non-compliance with discovery absent an order "finding that the conduct upon which the order is based was equivalent to willfulness or deliberate disregard [of the discovery orders]."”
Establishes the legal standard for when discovery sanctions are proper, requiring a specific finding of willfulness or deliberate disregard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClinton claimed to be a shareholder of Consolidated Dyeing entitled to an accounting related to the company's sale. The trial court found Clinton was …
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 Shareholder Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Defendants Consolidated Dyeing, Inc., and Stephen H. Rose, a Consolidated shareholder, appeal a final judgment. In accordance with a jury verdict, the court entered an Interim Order finding that plaintiff James Clinton III was a shareholder of Consolidated and that he was entitled to an accounting in connection with the sale of Consolidated. Subsequently, the court entered an Order on Motion for Accounting directing the parties to produce documents requested by the court-appointed accountant. When Rose and Consolidated failed to comply, the court entered an order compelling compliance. Rose and Consolidated did not comply with that order either, and the court imposed sanctions. At the status conference held prior to the bench trial on damages, the court entered an order clarifying the order imposing sanctions.1 The order precluded Rose and Consolidated from presenting evidence to controvert Clinton’s proof of damages during the bench trial; however, the court permitted Rose and Consolidated to cross-examine Clinton’s witnesses and to make objections. At the conclusion of the trial, the court entered a final judgment against Rose and Consolidated awarding damages to Clinton. Rose and Consolidated seek reversal of the Interim Order, the order imposing sanctions, and the final judgment awarding damages. We affirm the Interim Order, but reverse the order imposing sanctions and the final judgment awarding damages.
The trial court abused its discretion in imposing severe sanctions2 for non-compliance with discovery absent an order “finding that the conduct upon which the order is based was equivalent to willfulness or deliberate disregard [of the discovery orders].” Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla.1990). We therefore reverse the judgment awarding damages and remand for a hearing and further consideration. Tubero. If the court finds a “willful and deliberate refusal to obey a court order to comply with discovery,” Tubero, 569 So. 2d at 1272, the trial court is authorized to reinstate the orders imposing sanctions3 and the judgment awarding damages. Lazare v. Weiss, 437 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Appellants’ remaining points lack merit.
Accordingly, the Interim Order is affirmed; the remaining orders are reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. It appears that the trial court did not conduct a hearing on Clinton's motion for sanctions. However, the court revisited the issue at the unreported status conference.
. The Order on Status Conference states that the sanction was "tantamount to ... a [djefault.”
.We find that the sanctions were commensurate with the discovery violations. Delta Information Serv., Inc. v. Joseph R. Jannach M.D. & Assoc., 569 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marvel Rodriguez v. Thermal Dynamics, Inc., 582 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…noncompliance with discovery, a trial judge must issue an express written finding of willful or deliberate violation of a court’s discovery order(s). Commonwealth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271, 1273 (Fla.1990); Rose v. Clinton, 575 So. 2d 751, 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Nob Hill at Welleby, Ltd. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 573 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); CDR Mktg., Inc. v. Chopin, 573 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Urbanek v. R.D. Schmaltz, Inc., 573 So. 2d 107, 108-9 (Fla. 4th DCA…
-
Tico Ins. Co. v. Schonning, 960 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…n of severe sanctions). See also Bank One, N.A. v. Harrod, 873 So. 2d 519, 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(“Where, as here, there is no indication that the trial court considered [the Kozel ] factors, ... reversal has been required.”); Rose v. [*7] Clinton, 575 So. 2d 751, 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(“The trial court abused its discretion in imposing severe sanctions for non-compliance with discovery absent an order ‘finding that the conduct upon which the order is based was equivalent to willfulness or deliberate disrega…
-
John E. Bator in Bankr. for Radicon Corp., Inc. v. Gould, 585 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Commonwealth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla.1990); Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983); Rose v. Clinton, 575 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Nob Hill at Welleby, Ltd. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 573 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Delta Information Servs., Inc. v. Joseph R. Jannach, M.D. & Assocs., 569 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 410 S…
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
- Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Moshe Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990)
- Calafell v. Kinstler, 437 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Cavanaugh v. Etta Reuben, 437 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- DELTA Info. Servs., Inc. v. Jannach, 569 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)