ARKITEKNIC, INC. D/B/A ARKI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED GLASS LAMINATING, INC., 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.
Arkiteknic appeals a trial court's default judgment and order striking pleadings imposed as a sanction for failure to meet disclosure deadlines. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that dismissal as a sanction requires the trial court to make specific preliminary findings of fact addressing six factors established in Kozel v. Ostendorf before such an ultimate sanction can be imposed.
A trial court cannot impose dismissal as a sanction without first making preliminary findings of fact addressing six Kozel factors: (1) whether disobedience was willful or merely neglectful; (2) prior sanctions history; (3) personal involvement of the client; (4) prejudice to the opposing party; (5) whether reasonable justification existed; and (6) whether the delay created significant judicial administration problems.
[1] Dismissal of a case as a sanction for noncompliance with disclosure deadlines is the ultimate sanction and should be reserved for aggravating circumstances where lesser s…
[2] Before imposing dismissal as a sanction, trial courts must make preliminary findings of fact addressing whether the attorney's disobedience was willful, deliberate, or co…
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“Because dismissal is the ultimate sanction in the adversarial system, it should be reserved for those aggravating circumstances in which a lesser sanction would fail to achieve a just result.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that dismissal is an extraordinary remedy requiring careful justification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArkiteknic failed to comply with certain disclosure deadlines in litigation against United Glass Laminating. The trial court responded by entering a f…
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 reverse the trial court’s final default judgment and order striking pleadings as a sanction for failure to comply with certain disclosure deadlines. “Because dismissal is the ultimate sanction in the adversarial system, it 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, 818 (Fla.1993). To ensure that the sanction of dismissal is prudently applied, trial courts must first make certain preliminary findings of fact. Alvarado v. Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs, Inc., 8 So.3d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Tianvan v. AVCO Corp., 898 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). These findings must address:
1) whether the attorney’s disobedience was willful, deliberate, or contumacious, rather than an act of neglect or inexperience; 2) whether the attorney has been previously sanctioned; 3) whether the client was personally involved in the act of disobedience; 4) whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some other fashion; 5) whether the attorney offered reasonable justification for noncompliance; and 6) whether the delay created significant problems of judicial administration.
Kozel, 629 So.2d at 818.
Here, the trial court did not make the preliminary findings of fact concerning each of the Kozel factors. Accordingly, we reverse the final default judgment and order striking pleadings and remand to the trial court to consider all six Kozel factors. If, after considering the six factors, the trial court determines that no less severe sanction is appropriate, and again dismisses the case with prejudice, the trial court shall include in its order of dismissal findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to each of the Kozel factors. See Smith v. City of Panama, 951 So.2d 959, 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Aisa Cagigas, 85 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…he delay created significant problems of judicial administration. Buroz-Henriquez v. De Buroz, 19 So. 3d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); accord Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 496 (Fla. 2004); see Arkiteknic, Inc. v. United Glass Laminating, Inc., 53 So. 3d 366, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Alvarado v. Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs, Inc., 8 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Alsina v. Gonzalez, 83 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Hawthorne v. Wesley, 82 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). In so doing, the trial court mu…
-
Erdman v. Bloch, 65 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…fulness or deliberate disregard.” Id. This Court, along with the other district courts, has also interpreted Kozel to require written findings addressing the Kozel factors in an order of dismissal. Arkiteknic, Inc. v. United Glass Laminating, Inc., 53 So. 3d 366, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Sanders v. Gussin, 30 So. 3d 699, 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Smith v. City of Panama, 951 So. 2d 959, 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Pixton v. Williams Scotsman, Inc., 924 So. 2d 37, 40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Rohlwing v. Myakka River…
-
Portofino Prof'l Ctr. v. Prime Homes AT Portofino, 133 So. 3d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…2) (citing Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 500 (Fla.2004)). It is well established that a court must first consider each of the Kozel factors before it may dismiss a cause as a sanction. Id. at 962; Arkiteknic, Inc. v. United Glass Laminating, Inc., 53 So. 3d 366, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). There is no evidence that the trial court made preliminary findings of fact concerning each of the Kozel factors in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the orders on appeal and remand the case for consideration of those fact…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carolann D. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)
- Smith v. City OF Panama City, 951 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Yalila Alvarado and Wilfredo Alvarado, Jr. v. Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs, Inc., 8 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Rivera v. State, 898 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Peachie D. Tianvan v. Avco Corp., 898 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)