DOUGLAS E. STEWART, INDIVIDUALLY; EARL D. STEWART, JR., INDIVIDUALLY; JANET GOETZ, INDIVIDUALLY; STEWART PONTIAC COMPANY, INC., D/B/A STEWART MAZDA; STEWART PONTIAC COMPANY, INC., D/B/A STEWART IMPORTS; STEWART AGENCY, INC., D/B/A STEWART TOYOTA OF NORTH PALM BEACH; STEWART AGENCY, INC., D/B/A STEWART TOYOTA; STEWART AGENCY, INC., D/B/A STEWART LEASING; STEWART SELECT CARS, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
JENNIFER JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RESPONDENT
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.
Court quashed a discovery sanction imposing a daily monetary fine because the trial court failed to make a finding of contempt, which is a prerequisite to assessing fines in the discovery context.
A monetary fine imposed as a discovery sanction must be predicated on a finding of contempt.
[1] A monetary fine imposed as a discovery sanction must be predicated on a finding of contempt.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners failed to produce requested documents in discovery. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion to enforce its order and for sanctions, fin…
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 Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, defendants below, seek certiorari review of a nonfinal order granting the plaintiffs second motion to enforce the court’s order and motion for sanctions, finding Petitioners’ failure to produce the requested documents was willful and intentional, ordering production within thirty days, and ordering a fine in the amount of $1,000 per day from the thirty-first day until full compliance. We grant the petition in part, and quash that part of the order on review which imposes a monetary fine without a finding of contempt.
The assessment of a fine in the discovery context must be predicated on a finding of contempt. See Hoffman v. Hoffman, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1539, - So. 2d -, 1998 WL 329575 (Fla. 4th DCA June 24, 1998); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 718 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Paramount Advisors, Inc. v. Schwartz, 591 So. 2d 671, 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (citing Palm Shores v. Nobles, 149 Fla. 103, 5 So. 2d 52 (1941)); Florida Physicians Ins. Reciprocal v. Baliton, 436 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The Respondent has not sought to have Petitioners held in contempt, so the trial court on remand may not clarify its order to include a contempt determination, as the respondent has suggested.
We find the other issues raised in the petition to be without merit and deny relief on those grounds without discussion.
POLEN, FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yair Barak v. ACS Int'l Projects, Ltd. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…fine unconnected to the expenses (such as attorneys' fees) caused by the failure to provide discovery. Thus the assessment of a fine in the discovery context must be predicated upon a finding of contempt.”) (citations omitted); Stewart v. Jones, 728 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding the “assessment of a fine in the discovery context must be predicated on a finding of contempt”) (citations omitted); Fla. Physicians Ins. Reciprocal v. Baliton, 436 So. 2d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (“Alth…
-
Channel Components, Inc. v. Am. II Elecs., Inc., 915 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…a monetary sanction or fine unconnected to the expenses (such as attorneys’ fees) caused by the failure to provide discovery. Thus the assessment of a fíne in the discovery context must be predicated upon a finding of contempt. See Stewart v. Jones, 728 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Fla. Physicians Ins. Reciprocal v. Baliton, 436 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Biddy, 392 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980) (authorizing the imposition of a $2000 fine after affirming an adjudication…1 / 2
-
H.K. Dev., LLC. v. Greer, 32 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…gainst” each of the three appellants “for $21,000.00 (June 14, 2007 through January 16, 2008; 217 days), for which let execution issue.” We first consider the Order to Compel. The Order to Compel makes no finding of contempt.7 See Stewart v. Jones, 728 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that the “assessment of a fine in the discovery context must be predicated on a finding of contempt”). See also Channel Components, Inc. v. Am. II Elec., Inc., 915 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005) (noting that…
Authorities Cited
- Palm Shores, Inc. v. Nobles, 149 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1941)
- Fla. Physicians Ins. Reciprocal v. Romeo C. Baliton, M.D., 436 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Kendrick v. State, 591 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Garnsey v. State, 718 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Hoffman v. Hoffman, 718 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)