BENJAMIN SAENZ, APPELLANT,
v.
PATCO TRANSPORT, INC., ET AL., 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.
Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's personal injury action with prejudice for fraud on the court based on repeated concealment of material facts during discovery, as the conduct met the standard for dismissal within the trial court's discretion.
A trial court may dismiss an action for fraud on the court when a party has sentiently set in motion an unconscionable scheme to interfere with the judicial system's ability to impartially adjudicate the matter.
[1] A trial court has inherent authority to dismiss an action when a plaintiff perpetrates fraud on the court by sentiently setting in motion an unconscionable scheme to inte…
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 intelligence“it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability to impartially adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense.”
Standard for dismissal based on fraud on the court, quoting Gehrmann v. City of Orlando and Cox v. Burke.
Benjamin Saenz filed a personal injury action against Patco Transport, Inc. During discovery, Saenz repeatedly attempted to conceal material facts rel…
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 Inherent Authority Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Benjamin Saenz appeals an order dismissing his personal injury action with prejudice. The trial court dismissed the action after finding that Saenz’ repeated attempts during discovery to conceal material facts related to his medical condition and work history amounted to a fraud on the court. Dismissal for fraud is only warranted “where ‘it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability to impartially adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.’ ” Gehrmann v. City of Orlando, 962 So. 2d 1059, 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). Whether Saenz’ false discovery responses rise to a level justifying dismissal under this standard presents a close question. However, a “trial court has the inherent authority, within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court.” Id. at 1062. Having carefully considered the record and the arguments of each party, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision.
AFFIRMED.
PALMER, C.J., PLEUS'and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bologna v. Schlanger, 995 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…ord supports the trial court’s determination that Bologna provided intentionally false deposition testimony and interrogatory answers. Where a case presents a close call, we should defer to the trial judge’s discretion. Saenz v. Patco Transp., Inc., 969 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Concluding, I believe the trial court had clear and convincing evidence before it to support the dismissal of the action with prejudice. See Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43. More important, on these facts, I cannot agree that the t…
-
Nikki Ann Childress (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2010)…ose question or where reasonable minds could differ on the imposition of the dismissal sanction, the trial court should be affirmed. Bass v. City of Pembroke Pines, 991 So. 2d 1008, 1111-12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). See also Saenz v. Patco Transp., Inc., 969 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d at 47. We appreciate that a prejudicial dismissal is the ultimate sanction, an “extraordinary remedy found only in cases where a deliberate scheme to subvert the judicial process has been clearly and co…
Authorities Cited
- COX v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Gehrmann v. City OF Orlando, 962 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)