DYC FISHING, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
CLARA MARTINEZ AND PERLA DEL CARIBE, 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.
DYC Fishing appealed a default judgment entered against it for willfully disregarding court discovery orders. The appellate court affirmed the striking of DYC's pleadings and entry of default as an appropriate sanction, but reversed and remanded the award of unliquidated damages, holding that a trial was required to determine the amount rather than relying solely on an affidavit.
The trial court properly struck DYC's pleadings and entered a default because DYC willfully and deliberately disregarded court orders, but the trial court erred in awarding unliquidated damages based solely on an affidavit. A trial is required to determine unliquidated damages, and the defaulting party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to defend on the amount.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in striking a defendant's pleadings and entering a default when the defendant willfully and deliberately disregards multiple c…
[2] A default judgment only admits a plaintiff's entitlement to liquidated damages.
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“It is well settled in Florida that a default judgment only admits to a plaintiffs entitlement to liquidated damages.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that default judgments are limited to liquidated damages, not unliquidated damages.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDYC Fishing failed to comply with several court orders requiring production of documents central to the plaintiffs' claims for damages. The trial cour…
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 Willful Disregard Of Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
LAGOA, J.
Defendant, DYC Fishing, Ltd. (“DYC”), appeals from a default final judgment awarding damages to plaintiffs, Clara Martinez and Perla Del Caribe, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s order striking DYC’s pleadings and entering a default, but reverse and vacate that portion of the default final judgment awarding unliquidated damages to Plaintiffs.
With regard to the first issue, DYC contends that the order striking its answer and defenses and entering a default was too severe a sanction. Our review of the record, however, shows that the trial court struck DYC’s answer and affirmative defenses and entered a default after finding that DYC willfully and deliberately disregarded several court orders which required production of documents that went to the heart of Plaintiffs’ claims for damages. Indeed, the trial court’s order contains a detailed factual description of DYC’s actions that led to the striking of its pleadings and which the trial court found evidenced DYC’s willful, deliberate disregard of the court’s orders. Because the trial court found that DYC’s actions amounted to willful disregard, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking DYC’s pleadings, and we affirm on that issue. See Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla.1983) (striking of pleadings justified by “deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority ... bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness”).
We are compelled, however, to reverse the default final judgment awarding unliquidated damages to the Plaintiffs. On appeal, DYC argues that a trial was required because the damages Plaintiffs sought were unliquidated. We agree. Indeed, as the Plaintiffs properly concede, the trial court committed reversible error in awarding damages, costs, and prejudgment interest to the Plaintiffs based solely on the damages affidavit.
As this Court has repeatedly explained, “[i]t is well settled in Florida that a default judgment only admits to a plaintiffs entitlement to liquidated damages.” U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. C & C Beauty Sales, Inc., 674 So. 2d 169, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see also Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, 957 So. 2d 662, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Damages are liquidated when the amount to be awarded can be determined with exactness from a pleaded agreement between the parties, by an arithmetical calculation, or by application of definite rules of law. See Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Damages are unliq-uidated “if the ascertainment of their exact sum requires the taking of testimony to ascertain facts upon which to base a value judgment.” Id. at 663. When unliquidat-ed damages must be determined as a result of a default, the defaulting party “is entitled to notice of an order setting the matter for trial, and must be afforded an opportunity to defend.” Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1090, 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also Bowman, 432 So. 2d at 663 (“A defaulting party has a due process entitlement to notice and opportunity to be heard as to the presentation and evaluation of evidence necessary to a judicial determination of the amount of unliquidated damages.”).
Because the trial court committed reversible error in relying solely on the Plaintiffs’ affidavit of damages in awarding unliquidated damages, we reverse and vacate that portion of the default final judgment and further remand this case for a trial on the issue of unliquidated damages.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ciprian-Escapa v. City OF Orlando, 172 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…ervs. Corp., 103 So. 3d 1049, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Asian Imports, Inc. v. Pepe, 633 So. 2d 551, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). This is so even when the answer is stricken and a default is entered as a sanction. DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Martinez, 994 So. 2d 461, 462-63 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). A judgment entered without notice and an opportunity to be heard is void and may be collaterally attacked at any time. Rodriguez-Faro v. M. Escarda Contractor, Inc., 69 So. 3d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing Cellula…
-
Brickell Travel Mgmt., LLC v. Apogee Leadership, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…dered in favor of appellee, Apogee Leadership, LLC. We affirm the denial, but we reverse the final judgment to the extent it awarded unliquidated damages and remand for a properly noticed evidentiary hearing. See DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Martinez, 994 So. 2d 461, 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quoting Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1090, 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)) (“When unliquidated damages must be determined as a result of a default, the defaulting party ‘is entitled to notice of an order se…
-
Motors v. Miami Medley Bus. & Indus., LLC., 116 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…damages.’ Damages are liquidated when the amount to be awarded can be determined with exactness from a pleaded agreement between the parties, by an arithmetical calculation, or by application of definite rules of law. DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Martinez, 994 So. 2d 461, 462-63 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quoting U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. C & C Beauty Sales, Inc., 674 So. 2d 169, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)). We therefore reverse and remand with directions to vacate the final default judgment and for further proceedings consistent…
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
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Flagship Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Gray Distrib. Sys., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Terrie G. Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 957 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- United States Fire Ins. Co. v. C & C Beauty Sales, Inc., 674 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)