IDELFONSO CARDELLE, APPELLANT,
v.
HSBC BANK USA, NA, 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 court held that a sua sponte dismissal of a complaint without notice violates due process. The court affirmed the vacating of a default but reversed the dismissal.
Appellant appealed an order vacating a default against appellee and dismissing appellant's complaint with prejudice. The dismissal occurred sua sponte…
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 Sua Sponte Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Idelfonso Cardelle, appeals from the trial court’s order which 1) vacated an earlier default entered against appellee, HSBC Bank USA; and 2) dismissed Cardelle’s complaint with prejudice.
*367We affirm without further discussion the trial court’s order insofar as it vacated the default previously entered against HSBC Bank, as appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court grossly abused its discretion. See M.W. v. SPCP Grp. V, LLC, 163 So.3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
However, we find merit in Cardelle’s claim that the trial court, at that same hearing, erred in dismissing Cardelle’s complaint with prejudice. The trial court entered its order of dismissal sua sponte, at a hearing that was scheduled for the purpose of addressing the default and the request for entry of a default final judgment. Cardelle would have no reason to anticipate (and was provided no notice) that the hearing would include consideration of dismissal of Cardelle’s complaint. The sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, in the absence of proper notice, violated Cardelle’s due process rights by expanding the scope of the hearing and making a determination on matters not noticed for that hearing. See Pinnock v. Whyte, 209 So.3d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Shah v. Shah, 178 So.3d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Epic Metals Corp. v. Samari Lake East Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 547 So.2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
We therefore affirm the trial court’s order insofar as it vacated the default against HSBC Bank, but reverse the trial court’s order insofar as it dismissed Car-delle’s complaint with prejudice.1
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Bank Tr. Nat'l Ass'n v. Carey, 431 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Epic Metals Corp. v. Samari Lake E. Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 547 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- M.W. v. SPCP Grp. V, LLC, 163 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Amruta Nilay Shah v. Nilay R. Shah, 178 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Xernona Pinnock v. Whyte, 209 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)