ARTHUR MACK, INDIVIDUALLY, AND NMC INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTORS, INC., 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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the defendants' pleadings and entering a default judgment.
The defendants appealed an order striking their pleadings and entering a default judgment against them. The trial court found the defendants had delib…
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 Gross Indifference cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendants below, Arthur Mack and NMC Investment Associates, appeal from an order striking their pleadings and entering a default. We affirm.
In Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983), the Florida Supreme Court stated that:
the striking of pleadings or entering a default for noncompliance with an order compelling discovery is the most severe of all sanctions which should be employed only in extreme circumstances. A deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority will justify application of this severest of sanctions, as will bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness.
Mercer, 443 So. 2d at 946 (citations omitted). An appellate court cannot reverse such an order unless the trial court abused its discretion. Mercer, 443 So. 2d at 945-46.
In the instant case, the trial court outlined the defendants’ various discovery violations and found that “the record in this case ... evidences Defendants’ deliberate and contumacious disregard of this Court’s authority and Defendants’ bad faith, willful disregard and gross indifference to the applicable rules of civil procedure....” After a careful review of the record, we find that the record supports this finding. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the defendants’ pleading and entering a default. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.A. Burnette v. Grove Isle Club, Inc., 710 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…se orders was willful. See Commonwealth Fed. Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271, 1273 (Fla.1990); Davis Garden Estates, Inc. v. American Inv. Realty, Inc., 670 So. 2d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Mack v. National Constructors, Inc., 666 So. 2d 244, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Affirmed.…
-
Clark v. Lake City Police Dep't, 723 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…to comply with discovery will only be reversed upon finding an abuse of discretion by the trial court; however, because of the severity of the sanction, it should only be employed under extreme circumstances. See Mack v. National Constructors, Inc., 666 So. 2d 244, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla.1983), the Florida Supreme Court described what would constitute such extreme circumstances: A deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority will justify applica…
Authorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)