ERIC FREED
v.
CECI INTERNATIONAL LLC, ETC., ET AL.
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.
A trial court must consider and make findings regarding each of the six Kozel factors before dismissing a case as a sanction for failure to comply with discovery deadlines, and failure to do so requires reversal and remand.
[1] Before dismissing a case as a sanction for discovery violations, a trial court must consider and make findings regarding each of the six factors set forth in Kozel v. …
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“failure to consider the Kozel factors in determining whether dismissal was appropriate is, by itself, a basis for remand for application of the correct standard”
Citation to Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 500 (Fla. 2004)
Freed sued Ceci International and Arc Investments for conversion, conspiracy, and equitable lien. Freed missed a discovery deadline set in the trial c…
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 Conspiracy Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 24, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1628 Lower Tribunal No. 19-17680 ________________
Eric Freed, Appellant,
vs.
Ceci International, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne Del Rio, Judge.
Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP and Victor Petrescu, for appellant.
Matthew Estevez, P.A., and Matthew Estevez, for appellees.
Before EMAS, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.
LOBREE, J.
Eric Freed sued Ceci International, LLC (“Ceci”), and Arc Investments
2 USA, LLC (“Arc”), alleging claims against each for conversion, conspiracy, and equitable lien. When Freed missed a discovery deadline set forth in the trial court’s agreed order on Freed’s motion for extension of time to respond to discovery, Ceci and Arc moved for an involuntary dismissal under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b). After conducting non-evidentiary hearings on the matter, the trial court dismissed Freed’s action without prejudice.1 We reverse on the ground that the dismissal order does not reflect that the trial court considered the six necessary factors set forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993), before dismissing Freed’s action. See Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 500 (Fla. 2004) (“[F]ailure to consider the Kozel factors in determining whether dismissal was appropriate is, by itself, a basis for remand for application of the correct standard.”); Buroz- Henriquez v. De Buroz, 19 So. 3d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“It is well established that before a court may dismiss a cause or default a party as a
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carolann D. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)
- HAM v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2004)
- Smith v. ST. VIL, 714 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Rodriguez, 206 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Wild, 164 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Marzuq Al-Hakim v. BIG Lots Stores, Inc., 161 So. 3d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Deutsche Bank v. Sombrero Beach Road, 260 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Sanchez v. Brink's Inc., 19 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)