K&K WORLD ENTERPRISE, INC., K&K WORLD TRAVEL, INC., AND KARINA KNAUSEDER, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNION SPOL, S.R.O., 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.
K&K World Enterprise and related parties appeal a default final judgment entered after the trial court struck their pleadings and dismissed their counterclaim due to alleged noncompliance with court orders. The appellate court reversed, finding no record evidence supporting the trial court's finding of willful and contumacious disregard necessary to justify this extreme sanction.
The court reversed the default final judgment, holding that striking pleadings is an extreme sanction requiring record evidence of willful or contumacious disregard, and that mere noncompliance with court orders is insufficient without evidence of the reasons for such noncompliance or bad faith.
[1] Striking a party's pleadings is the most extreme sanction a court can impose.
[2] A party's deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority may justify striking pleadings.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 striking of a party's pleadings is the most extreme sanction which can be imposed by a court and it is well-settled that a party's deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority will justify its imposition.”
Establishes the legal standard for when the extreme sanction of striking pleadings is permissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK&K World Enterprise, K&K World Travel, and Karina Knauseder failed to retain new counsel within thirty days of a court order and Knauseder did not ap…
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 Disregard Of Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants K&K World Enterprise, Inc., K&K World Travel, Inc. (collectively “K & K”) and Karina Knauseder appeal a default final judgment. The default final judgment was entered against appellants after the lower court struck their pleadings and dismissed their counterclaim due to K & K’s failure to retain new counsel within thirty days of a court order and Knauseder’s non-appearance1 at a calendar call pursuant to the court’s pretrial order. Although the court found appellants’ noneompliance with these orders to be willful and deliberate in nature, we reverse upon our finding that there is no record evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion in this regard.
The striking of a party’s pleadings is the most extreme sanction which can be imposed by a court and it is well-settled that a party’s deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority will justify its imposition. See Commonwealth Federal Savings and Loan Assn. v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla.1990).
It is equally well-established, however, that there must be record evidence to support a trial court’s finding of a willful or contumacious disregard of its orders. See Gomez-Bonilla v. Apollo Ship Chandlers, Inc., 650 So. 2d 116, 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (finding record of seaman’s repeated failure to appear at deposition insufficient to indicate his willful disregard); Insua v. World Wide Air, Inc., 582 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding record devoid of any evidence that violation was flagrant, persistent, willful, or otherwise aggravated); Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (finding no record evidence of bad faith noncompliance with discov ery requests which would warrant finding of willful and flagrant' disobedience), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1987); Aller v. Editorial Planeta, S.A, 389 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (dismissal too severe where record is devoid of evidence reflecting willful or flagrant disregard for court’s authority); Crystal Lake Golf Course, Inc. v. Kalin, 252 So. 2d 379, 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (failure to attend pre-trial conference not evidence reflecting willful disregard); Cf Arango v. Alvarez, 585 So. 2d 1131. 1132-33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (pro se defendants failure to appear at calender call held willful where stated reason for nonappearance, unfanxiliarity with judicial process, not a sufficient justification for ignoring court order).
Indeed, we said in Gomez-Bonilla that before a trial court administers such a severe sanction:
it should be certain that the party’s conduct indicates “[a] deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority[,] ... bad faith, or a willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness.”
650 So. 2d at 118 (citing Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla.1983)).
There was no record evidence below to support the court’s ultimate conclusion that K & K had wilfully failed to timely obtain new counsel or that Knauseder had wilfully failed to attend the pretrial conference as scheduled. We do not believe that the appellant’s mere noncompliance with these orders were sufficient to evince wilfulness. Specifically, when the court struck the appellants’ pleadings and entered the defaults it had no evidence as to the reasons for their non-compliance with its orders. We find the lower court’s imposition of this severe sanction to be a gross abuse of discretion.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
. Knauseder claims, and submitted a sworn affidavit in support, that she did appear for calendar call, albeit late.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baja Vill. Mkts., Inc. v. Baja Supermarket, Inc., 712 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…gard of a court’s authority. Mere negligence does not suffice to justify such an extreme measure, and mere noncompliance with a court order, standing alone, is insufficient to indicate willfulness. See K & K World Enter., Inc. v. Union SPOL, S.R.O., 692 So. 2d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In addition, it is equally clear that before a court may strike a party’s pleadings, “a trial court is required to make an express determination as to whether the offending party’s actions were willful or deliberate.” See V…1 / 2
-
Aviad Visoly v. Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.A., 707 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…appellant’s failure to comply with this order was deliberate and in contumacious disregard of the court’s authority. See Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla.1990); K & K World Enter., Inc. v. Union SPOL, S.R.O., 692 So. 2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 3d-DCA 1997). Because the striking of a parties’ pleadings is the most extreme sanction, a trial court is required to make an express determination as to whether the offending party’s actions were willful or deliberate. See Commonwealth,…
-
Inez Munoz v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 692 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…URIAM. The final order dismissing the action because of alleged discovery violations by the plaintiffs is unjustified by the record and is therefore reversed for trial. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1993); K&K World Enter, v. Union Spol, 692 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Garlock, Inc. v. Harriman, 665 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Florida Lime Growers, Inc. v. Bloomer Plastics, Inc., 665 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Gomez- [*1005] Bonilla v. Apollo Ship Chandlers, Inc., 650 So. 2d 116 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Moshe Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990)
- Crystal Lake Golf Course, Inc. v. Kalin, 252 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Insua v. World Wide AIR, Inc., 582 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Aller v. Editorial Planeta, S.A., 389 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Arango v. Alvarez, 585 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Abel Gomez-Bonilla v. Apollo Ship Chandlers, Inc., 650 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)