JOSEPH SKLANDIS, APPELLANT,
v.
WALGREEN COMPANY, 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.
Plaintiff Sklandis appealed a final judgment dismissing his personal injury lawsuit against Walgreen Company. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court violated due process by conducting an evidentiary hearing on Walgreen's motion to dismiss without proper notice and adequate time for the plaintiff to prepare.
The trial court violated due process by failing to provide notice that evidence would be taken at the hearing and by scheduling a non-emergency dispositive motion hearing on less than 24 hours' notice. The plaintiff was entitled to fair notice and an opportunity to be heard before any dismissal order was entered.
[1] A party is entitled to fair notice and an opportunity to be heard before a case can be dismissed based on allegations of fraud and perjury.
[2] A dispositive motion hearing cannot be scheduled on less than twenty-four hours notice if such notice is unreasonably short.
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“The plaintiff is entitled to fair notice and an opportunity to be heard, prior to any order being entered which would dismiss the case on the basis of fraud and perjury.”
Establishes the due process requirement that a plaintiff must have notice and opportunity to be heard before dismissal on fraud grounds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSklandis sued Walgreen for personal injury occurring on Walgreen's premises. Before trial, Walgreen moved to dismiss based on claims of fraud and perj…
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 Due Process Notice Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
[*943] COPE, J.
Joseph Sklandis appeals a final judgment dismissing his case. For procedural reasons, we remand for a new hearing.
Plaintiff Joseph Sklandis sued defendant Walgreen Company for personal injury occurring on Walgreen’s premises. Prior to trial, Walgreen moved to dismiss the action based on a claim of fraud and perjury by the plaintiff. See Leo’s Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani, 802 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). At the court’s request, this was set for a hearing after a previously scheduled calendar call. The notice reflected that this was a “motion calendar” hearing, and there was no indication that evidence would be taken.
At the hearing, Walgreen brought witnesses to present testimony. The plaintiff objected that there had been no notice for an evidentiary hearing. Consequently plaintiffs counsel had not arranged for plaintiff to be present. The plaintiffs counsel stated that the plaintiff would wish to testify, and indicated what the substance of the plaintiffs testimony would be. The plaintiff also objected that the hearing had been scheduled on less than twenty-four hours notice, and that such notice was unreasonably short.
We conclude that there was insufficient due process notice. There was no notice to the plaintiff that evidence would be taken, and plaintiff made a timely objection on this point. The plaintiff is entitled to fair notice and an opportunity to be heard, prior to any order being entered which would dismiss the case on the basis of fraud and perjury. See Butts v. Hegmann, 705 So. 2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Hart v. Hart, 458 So. 2d 815, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Henzel v. Golstein, 349 So. 2d 824, 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Further, one day’s notice for a nonemergency dispositive motion was unreasonably short. See J.B. v. Dept. of Children & Family Serv., 768 So. 2d 1060, 1067 (Fla. 2000); Crepage v. City of Lauderhill, 774 So. 2d 61, 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
We reverse the judgment and remand for a new evidentiary hearing. We do so solely on procedural grounds, and do not express any opinion on the merits of Walgreen’s dismissal motion.
Reversed and remanded for a new hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Medina v. Fla. E. Coast Ry., L.L.C., 866 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…). However, due to the severity of dismissal as a sanction, it should only be employed in extreme circumstances, Cox, 706 So. 2d at 46, and only after the plaintiff has been given fair notice and an opportunity to be heard. Sklandis v. Walgreen Co., 832 So. 2d 942, 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Although Medina received fair notice and the court heard arguments on FEC’s motions, under these circumstances, the court abused its discretion by imposing the ultimate sanction without first taking the additional step of…
-
Diaz v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 137 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…smissal as a sanction should be employed only after a plaintiff has been given fair notice and an opportunity to be heard and reversing where the trial court did not grant the plaintiffs request for an evidentiary hearing); Sklandis v. Walgreen Co., 832 So. 2d 942, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“The plaintiff is entitled to fair notice and an opportunity to be heard, prior to any order being entered which would dismiss the case on the basis of fraud and perjury.”). We express no opinion on the merits of the motion…
Authorities Cited
- J.B. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 768 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2000)
- Hart v. Hart, 458 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Crepage v. City OF Lauderhill, 774 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Henzel v. Golstein, 349 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Leo's Gulf Liquors v. Chandresh Lakhani, 802 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Butts v. Hegmann, 705 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)