OMAR DAVID HUSSAMY, M.D., ET. AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
BEATRICE ROSE, RESPONDENT; CHARLES M. FISCHMAN, M.D., ET. AL., PETITIONERS, V. BEATRICE ROSE, 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.
The Court quashed the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in Rose v. Fiedler and remanded for reconsideration in light of Ham v. Dunmire.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding dismissal for attorney misconduct when the client was not personally involved. This…
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 Kozel Factors For Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Rose v. Fiedler, 855 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal relied upon Schlitt v. Currier, 763 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), and certified the following question as one of great public importance:
MAY A TRIAL COURT DISMISS A CIVIL ACTION AS THE RESULT OF THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S MISCONDUCT DURING THE COURSE OF THE LITIGATION WHERE A CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE KOZEL FACTORS POINT TO DISMISSAL EXCEPT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CLIENT WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN THE ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE?
Rose, 855 So. 2d at 127-28 (referring to Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1993)). We have jurisdiction and consolidate the petitions for purposes of this opinion. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. This Court recently addressed the essence of this certified question and disapproved Schlitt in Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492 (Fla.2004). Thereafter, we directed the parties in the present cases to show cause why this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction, summarily quash Rose, and remand for reconsideration in light of Ham. After consideration of the responses to those show cause orders dated June 24, 2005, and the replies thereto, the Court has determined that it should do just that.
Therefore, this Court accepts jurisdiction in these cases, the petitions for review are granted, the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Rose is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the district court of appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Ham. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court.
It is so ordered.
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTÉAD, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Tobkin, 944 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2006)…film librarian, which led the center’s personnel to summon security. Among other things, the referee considered the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Rose v. Fiedler, 855 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), quashed sub nom. Hussamy v. Rose, 916 So. 2d 785 (Fla.2005). In that case, the district court found Tobkin’s actions before the trial court contumacious and willfully disobedient, and that they had caused prejudice to the defense. The opinion also noted that the trial court had imposed sanctions o…1 / 2
-
THE Florida BAR v. Gwynn, 94 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 2012)…fact as to several counts on the basis that the findings were based on the “hearsay language included in the ‘unauthenticated’ opinion of the Fourth District in Rose v. Fiedler, 855 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) [iquashed sub nom. Hussamy v. Rose, 916 So. 2d 785 (Fla.2005) ].”4 The Court rejected this challenge, explaining that because bar disciplinary proceedings are “quasi-judicial rather than civil or criminal, the referee is not bound by the technical rules of evidence. Consequently, a referee has wide…
-
Rose v. Michael W. Fiedler, M.D., 921 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…2004). Our supreme court found the subsequently rendered decision in Ham had addressed the essence of the question certified in Rose I, quashed the decision in Rose I, and remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of Ham. See Hussamy v. Rose, 916 So. 2d 785 (Fla.2005). We have reconsidered the matter as instructed and now affirm the sanction imposed by the trial court. As detailed in our prior opinion, “all of the factors discussed in Kozel, except for one [personal involvement of the client], weigh he…
Authorities Cited
- Carolann D. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)
- HAM v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2004)
- Schlitt v. Currier, 763 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Rose v. Michael W. Fiedler, M.D., 855 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)