SHARY ASK
v.
FARHAD ASKARIAN
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 does not abuse its discretion in striking pleadings as a sanction for discovery violations when the record demonstrates repeated and willful noncompliance with discovery orders.
[1] Determination of sanctions for discovery violations is committed to the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.
[2] Striking of pleadings for noncompliance with discovery orders is the most severe sanction and should be employed only in extreme circumstances involving deliberate and co…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“We agree that the striking of pleadings or entering a default for noncompliance with an order compelling discovery is the most severe of all sanctions which should be employed only in extreme circumstances. A deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority will justify application of this severest of sanctions, as will bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness.”
Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983), cited for the standard governing when striking pleadings is appropriate
Appellant Shary Ask failed to comply with multiple discovery orders issued by the trial court. The trial court imposed the severe sanction of striking…
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 Striking Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 23, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-1313
Lower Tribunal No. 23-20362-FC-04
Shary Ask,
Appellant,
vs.
Farhad Askarian,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Veronica Diaz, Judge.
Gulisano Law, PLLC, and Michael Gulisano (Boca Raton), for appellant.
Fischler, Friedman & Bennett, P.A., and Howard Steven Friedman (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004) (“It is well settled that determining sanctions for discovery violations is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed upon appeal absent an abuse of the sound exercise of that discretion.”); Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983) (“We agree that the striking of pleadings or entering a default for noncompliance with an order compelling discovery is the most severe of all sanctions which should be employed only in extreme circumstances. A deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority will justify application of this severest of sanctions, as will bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness.") (internal citations omitted); Burnette v. Grove Isle Club, Inc., 710 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“Given the clear record evidence of the appellant's repeated failure to comply or inadequate compliance with numerous discovery orders after warning, we cannot find that the lower court abused its discretion in striking the appellant's pleadings after it found that the noncompliance with these orders was willful.").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- HAM v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2004)
- C.A. Burnette v. Grove Isle Club, Inc., 710 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)