DOMINICK DESIMONE, APPELLANT,
v.
OLD DOMINION INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A THE FORT LAUDERDALE INN, AND SOUTHERN INNS MANAGEMENT, INC., 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.
Plaintiff Dominick Desimone appealed the dismissal of his personal injury suit against a bar owner and manager for injuries sustained in the bar's parking lot. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice based on plaintiff's fraud during discovery, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that dismissal was a proper sanction for pervasive fraud that interfered with the court's ability to adjudicate the claim.
The court affirmed dismissal with prejudice as a proper sanction, holding that where a party perpetrates fraud on the court that permeates the entire proceedings, dismissal is appropriate. The court also found any error in admitting the depositions to be harmless given the extensive findings justifying dismissal based on fraud.
[1] Dismissal of an entire case with prejudice is a proper sanction when a party perpetrates a fraud on the court that permeates the entire proceedings.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing a case with prejudice when a plaintiff makes numerous and repeated misstatements of fact designed to intentional…
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“where a party perpetrates a fraud on the court which permeates the entire proceedings, dismissal of the entire case is proper”
Establishes the governing legal standard for dismissal based on fraud that affects the entire proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDesimone was struck by a vehicle operated by an intoxicated bar patron in the parking lot of a bar owned and managed by the defendants. During discove…
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 Sanctions For Litigation Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dominick Desimone, plaintiff below, appeals from the dismissal of his personal injury suit against the owner and manager of a bar for damages he allegedly sustained when he was struck by a vehicle operated by an intoxicated bar patron in the parking lot of the b$r. The trial court granted the defendants/appellees’ motion to dismiss the case based upon plaintiffs fraud. We affirm on the authority of Savino v. Florida Drive In Theatre Management, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
The trial court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss for fraud after holding a lengthy evidentiary hearing. The court found that during discovery appellant made deliberate misrepresentations and gave false information regarding his prior involvement in personal injury litigation, prior similar injuries, past medical treatment, criminal history, employment status and income. The court concluded that appellant made “numerous and repeated misstatements of fact designed to intentionally thwart defendants from conducting discovery” and that such conduct amounted to “a perpetration of fraud upon the court.”
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s dismissal of this case with prejudice. Our court has recognized and enforced the principle that “where a party perpetrates a fraud on the court which permeates the entire proceedings, dismissal of the entire case is proper.” Savino, 697 So. 2d at 1011 (citing Komblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)). Like the plaintiff in Savino, appellant lied about matters that bore directly on the issue of damages. The trial court properly determined that his conduct amounted to “a scheme calculated to interfere with the court’s ability to impartially adjudicate his claim.” We find that the court’s dismissal of appellant’s lawsuit was an appropriate sanction and affirm.
With respect to appellant’s second point on appeal, we agree that the trial court erred in admitting depositions of appellant’s two former employers, absent the unavailability findings required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330. However, we find this error to be harmless in light of the court’s extensive findings justifying dismissal of appellant’s action based on fraud.
AFFIRMED.
KLEIN, TAYLOR, JJ., WHITE, ALICE BLACKWELL, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Distefano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. INS. Co., 846 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir.1989)). When a party lies about matters bearing directly on the issue of damages, dismissal is an appropriate sanction. Desimone v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 740 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). [*575] Appellant contends that any misstatements she made during her June 2000 deposition were due to poor memory and were not intended to deceive, citing Simmons v. Henderson, 745 So. 2d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), as…
-
Jonah Hogan and Julie L. Hogan v. Dollar Rent A CAR Sys., Inc., 783 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…about “matters that bore directly on the issue of damages,” such as “prior involvement in personal injury litigation, prior similar injuries, past medical treatment, criminal history, employment status and income.” Desimone v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 740 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We observed that dismissal was proper because, as in this case, the lies were made “to intentionally thwart defendants from conducting discovery.” Id. In Savino v. Florida Drive In Theatre Management, Inc., 697 So. 2d 101…
-
Babe Elias Builders, Inc. v. Pernick, 765 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…of the court, or conduct which evidences a deliberate callousness.’ Id. ‘[W]here a party perpetrates fraud on the court which permeates the entire proceedings, dismissal of the en [*121] tire case is proper.’ Desimone v. Old Dominion Insurance Co., 740 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). 9. The defendant’s conduct during the discovery of this case has exhibited a ‘deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority,’ bad faith, and ‘a deliberate callousness.’ See Mercer, 443 So. 2d at 946. The…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ilene Sales Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Williams v. State, 697 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Savino v. Fla. Drive IN Theatre Mgmt., Inc., 697 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)