WILLIE E. CLARK, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD STURKS AND JANICE STURKS, 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.
Willie Clark, an incarcerated pro se litigant, appealed the dismissal of his conversion complaint for failing to attend a case management conference. The court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the action without finding that Clark's non-appearance was willful, flagrant, or otherwise aggravated.
The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Clark's action. Although trial courts have discretionary authority to sanction parties for failure to attend case management conferences, the sanction must be commensurate with the offense, and dismissal is inappropriate absent findings that the violation was willful, flagrant, persistent, or otherwise aggravated.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by dismissing a case for failure to attend a case management conference when the plaintiff is incarcerated and has requested a transpo…
[2] Dismissal of a complaint as a sanction for failing to attend a case management conference must be commensurate with the offense.
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“Although a trial court has discretionary authority to sanction a party for failure to attend a case management conference, the sanction must be commensurate with the offense.”
Establishes the legal standard that sanctions must be proportionate to the violation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClark filed a conversion complaint against the Sturks in April 1992 while imprisoned in Pinellas County. The trial court scheduled a case management c…
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 Willful Violation Of Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Willie E. Clark appeals an order dismissing his pro se complaint against Donald and Janice Sturks because he failed to attend a ease management conference. We reverse.
When this action was filed in April 1992, Mr. Clark was imprisoned in Pinellas County.1 His complaint alleged that the Sturks converted his property. In their answer, the Sturks denied any conversion and alleged that they were authorized to make decisions about Mr. Clark’s property under a power of attorney that he had signed.
On April 5,1993, the trial court entered an order scheduling a case management conference for May 6 at the Hillsborough County Courthouse. Mr. Clark responded on April 19 by filing a motion requesting an order of transport. He explained that he wished to attend the conference but that his incarceration prohibited it. Mr. Clark also sent a polite letter to the trial judge explaining his predicament. The trial court did not rule on Mr. Clark’s motion, but dismissed the complaint pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200(c) when Mr. Clark failed to appear at the conference.
Although a trial court has discretionary authority to sanction a party for failure to attend a case management conference, the sanction must be commensurate with the offense. Carazo v. Status Shipping, Ltd., 613 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Insua v. World Wide Air, Inc., 582 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 357 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). There is no evidence in this record that he has willfully violated the ease management order. The trial court’s order of dismissal did not contain a finding of any violation that was flagrant, persistent, willful, or otherwise aggravated. See Carazo, 613 So. 2d at 1330. Cf. Zeigler v. Huston, 626 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (requiring an express finding in order of dismissal). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Mr. Clark’s action. The order of dismissal is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and FULMER, JJ., concur. . This court upheld Mr. Clark's convictions for conspiracy, racketeering, and grand theft. He is currently serving his sentences for these offenses. See Clark v. State, 645 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), review denied, 652 So. 2d 816 (Fla.1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walter H.C. Drakeford v. Barnett Bank OF Tampa, 694 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ot warranted. Although a trial court has discretion to sanction a party for failure to attend a case management conference pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200(e), the sanction must be commensurate with the offense. See Clark v. Sturks, 668 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Carazo v. Status Shipping, Ltd., 613 So. 2d 1329, 1330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Insua v. World Wide Air, Inc., 582 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The striking of a party’s pleadings resulting in a dismissal or a default is…
-
Jenkins v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. & Allstate Ins. Co., 185 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…a case management conference, its order must “contain findings that the party’s actions were flagrant, willful; persistent, or otherwise aggravated.” Drakeford v. Barnett Bank of Tampa, 694 So. 2d 822, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citing Clark v. Sturks, 668 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)); see also Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla.1990). A trial court’s failure to comply with that requirement takes on special significance where, as here, the expiration of the statute of lim…
-
Almeta Molphus v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 696 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ither the appellants nor their counsel attended the case management conference. The appellants’ motion for rehearing was denied and they filed a timely notice of appeal from the final summary judgment. First, just as in the case of Clark v. Sturks, 668 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), there is no evidence in this record that the attorney willfully violated the case management order. Based upon the record before us, it is undisputed that the appellants’ attorney was ill and unable to attend the case management…
Authorities Cited
- Travelers Ins. Co. & Peter Vassey v. Rodriguez, 357 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Zeigler v. Huston, 626 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Insua v. World Wide AIR, Inc., 582 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Carazo v. Status Shipping, Ltd., 613 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Clark v. State, 645 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)