THOMAS F. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
IRA UDELL AND BROWARD EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision to strike a defendant's pleadings as a sanction for failure to attend mediation and improper document production responses. The court found that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the severest sanction when the record did not demonstrate sufficient misconduct to justify such action.
The trial court abused its discretion in striking appellant's pleadings. The level of misconduct demonstrated—failure to attend mediation and improper document production response—did not justify the severest sanction of striking pleadings. The court found the documented misconduct reflected derelictions of the appellant's attorney rather than the appellant himself and did not support striking pleadings.
[1] Striking a party's pleadings is an extreme sanction that requires a showing of severe misconduct.
[2] A party's failure to attend a mediation conference, without more, does not typically justify striking the party's pleadings.
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“we find that the trial court abused its discretion in striking appellant's pleadings as a sanction for failing to attend a mediation conference. The record does not demonstrate that level of misconduct which justifies the imposition of the severest of sanctions.”
The court's central holding that striking pleadings was an abuse of discretion given the level of misconduct involved.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas F. Williams failed to attend a mediation conference. When ordered to produce documents, Williams prepared a two-page handwritten memorandum tha…
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 Striking Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Under the facts of this case, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in striking appellant’s pleadings as a sanction for failing to attend a mediation conference. The record does not demonstrate that level of misconduct which justifies the imposition of the severest of sanctions. See Roggemann v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 670 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Townsend v. Feinberg, 659 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Other than the failure to attend mediation, the only misconduct relied upon by the trial court to justify the sanction was a failure to properly reply to a request for production. In response to an order compelling production, appellant prepared a two page handwritten memorandum, which he faxed to his attorney. The attorney then faxed his client’s handwritten missive to opposing counsel, instead of working with appellant to prepare a proper response under Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.350. Both incidents of misconduct reflect derelictions of appellant’s attorney,1 which do not support the striking of appellant’s pleadings in this case. See Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1994); Crystal Lake Golf Course, Inc. v. Kalin, 252 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
As to the order imposing sanctions for the failure to produce documents, we find no abuse of discretion. We reverse the final judgment, the partial final judgment in favor of plaintiff as to liability and the November 2, 1995 order granting plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. In light of the reversal, it is unnecessary to reach the other issue on appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
POLEN, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur. . Williams' appellate attorney did not handle the case at the trial level.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martini v. Young, 921 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…(reversal of dismissal with prejudice too severe a sanction for attorney missing a series of deadlines and failing to appear at scheduled hearing); Russell v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 779 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). See also Williams v. Udell, 690 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(miscon-duct did not justify striking party’s pleadings as sanction for failing to respond to [*654] request for production or attend mediation conference). In this case, the record does not establish that the Martinis engaged in…
-
See Williams v. Udell (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2009)…l. Unfortunately, due to her representing herself and her lack of experience, she did neither. have been sanctioned at all, a less severe sanction of admonishment or award of mediator’s and attorney’s fees would have sufficed. See Williams v. Udell, 690 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (striking appellant’s pleadings for failure to attend a mediation conference and failure to properly respond to a discovery request too severe a sanction); Corbino v. Ward, 801 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.72…
Authorities Cited
- Carolann D. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)
- Crystal Lake Golf Course, Inc. v. Kalin, 252 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Roggemann v. Boston Safe Deposit & Tr. Co., 670 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Townsend v. Feinberg, 659 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)