VANDERBILT INN ON THE GULF D/B/A VANDERBILT-BEACH ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, TIMEMED LABELING SYSTEMS, JERRY NERAD AND VAN-DEV, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
SHERRI PFENNINGER, 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.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial due to juror concealment, and the order is affirmed.
[1] A litigant's due diligence in investigating a juror's background does not require a lawsuit index search prior to the conclusion of jury selection.
[2] The standard of review for a trial court's order granting a new trial based on juror concealment is abuse of discretion.
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 intelligenceThe trial court granted a new trial because a juror failed to disclose past litigation involvement. This court initially reversed, finding a lack of d…
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 Diligence Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
COVINGTON, Judge.
This court issued an opinion in Vanderbilt Inn on the Gulf v. Pfenninger, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D356, 2002 WL 459252 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 8, 2002), reversing the decision of the trial court. The trial court had granted Pfenninger’s motion for new trial based on the fact that one juror had failed to disclose his past involvement in litigation. Our reversal was premised on the notion that Pfenninger failed to meet the due diligence requirement of De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1995). That is, a records check as to the juror’s litigation history was not completed until after the verdict was rendered. However, shortly after our opinion was issued, the Florida Supreme Court issued its decision in Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So. 2d 334 (Fla.2002). In its opinion, the court specifically disapproved of our holding in Vanderbilt. The court concluded that the due diligence prong of Be La Rosa does not require a lawsuit index search prior to the conclusion of jury selection. Tejada, 814 So. 2d at 343.
Thus, we must now review the trial court’s order granting a new trial in light of the supreme court’s ruling in Tejada. The standard of review of a trial court’s order granting a new trial because of juror concealment of information is abuse of discretion. Garnett v. McClellan, 767 So. 2d 1229, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). If reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the court’s ruling, then the abuse of discretion standard has not been met. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
As articulated by the court in Teja-da, due deference is to be granted to the trial judge because it is at the trial level “that the dynamics and context of the entire trial process can best be evaluated.” Tejada, 814 So. 2d at 345. Under all of the circumstances and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial. Thus, the order granting the new trial is affirmed and our previously issued opinion is withdrawn.
WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Ignacio Magana, M.D., Ignacio Magana, P.A., 911 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…(Fla. 5th DCA 2000). If reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the court’s ruling, then the abuse of discretion standard has not been met. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Vanderbilt Inn on the Gulf v. Pfenninger, 834 So. 2d 202, 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Furthermore, “[a]s articulated by the court in [Roberts v.] Tejada, [814 So. 2d 334, 345 (Fla.2002)], due deference is to be granted to the trial judge because it is at the trial level ‘that the dynamics and context of the e…
-
McCAUSLIN v. O'Conner, 985 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…PLEUS, J., dissenting. I dissent. Appellate review of an order granting a new trial because of juror con- [*564] cealment of information is on an abuse of discretion standard. Vanderbilt Inn v. Pfenninger, 834 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The majority opinion states that “from the cold record, we cannot glean the dynamics of this courtroom event....” In a “close call” case such as this, appellate courts should defer to the trial judge who was in the courtroom and…1 / 2
-
Hoang Dinh Duong, M.D., Radiology Assocs. of Hollywood, P.A. v. Ziadie, 125 So. 3d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…e and Two. After the interviews, Dr. Duong moved for a new trial based upon juror misconduct, which the trial court denied. As we said in Taylor v. Magana, 911 So. 2d 1263, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Vanderbilt Inn on the Gulf v. Pfenninger, 834 So. 2d 202; 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)) (alteration omitted) (internal citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted): The standard of review of a trial court’s order granting a new trial because of juror concealment of information is abuse of discretion.…
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
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- DE LA Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1995)
- Roberts v. Francisco Tejada, M.D., 814 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2002)
- Ethelene Garnett v. McCLELLAN, 767 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)