CALVIN A. JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
VELMA VIRGINIA SKARVAN, 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 Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of a plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for lack of sufficient findings. The court held that dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction requiring explicit findings of willful noncompliance and consideration of the Kozel factors before it may be imposed.
A dismissal order with prejudice must contain explicit findings of willful noncompliance with court orders and must reflect consideration of the Kozel factors. An order lacking these requisite findings and failing to consider applicable legal standards cannot stand, even if the trial court may have been justified in imposing the sanction.
[1] Dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction that should be reserved for aggravating circumstances where a lesser sanction would fail to achieve a just result.
[2] A trial court's order of dismissal with prejudice must contain explicit findings of willful noncompliance with court orders.
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“Dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction that should be reserved for those aggravating circumstances in which a lesser sanction would fail to achieve a just result.”
Establishes the high standard for imposing dismissal with prejudice and that it should be a last resort.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCalvin A. Johnson filed a lawsuit against Velma Virginia Skarvan. At a pretrial conference on March 4, 2009, the trial court dismissed Johnson's compl…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint of the ap*179pellant Calvin A. Johnson, with prejudice.1 Because the order contains insufficient findings, we reverse and remand for further consideration.
The trial court dismissed Mr. Johnson’s complaint at a pretrial conference. Based on the odd happenings that preceded the dismissal, we can guess that the trial judge may have taken that action because he perceived that Mr. Johnson had failed to comply with one or more court orders. In any event, the order dismissing the complaint simply read:
Upon consideration of the pretrial hearing on March 9, 2009,[2] with the plaintiff appearing Pro Se, and David Collins appearing for the Defendant, Velma Virginia Skarvan, this court orders and adjudges as follows:
1. The plaintiffs[,] Calvin Johnson, lawsuit against the defendant Velma Virginia Skarvan is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
Dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction that should be reserved for those aggravating circumstances in which a lesser sanction would fail to achieve a just result. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla.1993); but see Levine v. Del Am. Props., Inc., 642 So.2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (affirming an order of dismissal that detailed with particularity the disruptive and contumacious behavior of the litigant as the reason for the sanction of dismissal and finding that the factors set forth in Kozel do not apply where the disruptive behavior is caused by the litigant and not the litigant’s lawyer). While a trial court undoubtedly has discretion after due consideration of the Kozel factors to dismiss a complaint for noncompliance with a court order, the dismissal order must contain explicit findings of willful noncompliance. See Scallan v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 995 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see also Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271 (Fla.1990). While the trial court may well have been justified in dismissing the present case with prejudice, the lack of the requisite finding of willful noncompliance in the order and the failure to consider the Kozel factors requires reversal. Id.; see also Hanna v. Indus. Labor Serv., Inc., 636 So.2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We, therefore, reverse and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and TORPY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I Creatives, Inc. v. Premier Printing Solutions, Inc., 163 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…of the court, terminating the party’s rights to a merits decision by the court. Implicit within the concept is some degree of disrespect for court processes bordering on, if not explicitly constituting, willful noncompliance. See Johnson v. Skarvan, 27 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); see also Florida Bar v. Norkin, 132 So. 3d 77 (Fla.2013). Mere noncompliance with a pre-failure communication by the clerk of the court does not ipso facto reach that level of disrespect. Because Ms. Baldwin, I Creatives’ appel…
-
Taylor v. City OF Lake Worth & City Comm'n of Lake Worth, 125 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…iberate refusal to obey a court order”) (citing J.E.I. Airlines, Inc. v. Britton, Cassel, Schantz & Schatzman, P.A., 605 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla.1990)); Johnson v. Skarvan, 27 So. 3d 178, 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (reversing dismissal of pro se plaintiffs complaint when order did not contain explicit findings). Reversed and remanded. STEVENSON, CIKLIN, JJ., and MORGAN, DAVID C., Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Carolann D. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)
- Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Moshe Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990)
- Cyril Hanna v. Indus. Labor Serv., Inc., 636 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Levine v. DEL Am. Props., Inc., 642 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Scallan v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 995 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Johnson v. Skarvan, 992 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)