BRIAN FRITZ
v.
TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY

Fla. 4th DCA | 2023-06-28
No. 22-0870
Dubow, J.
342 So. 3d 680 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2023) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Holding

A circuit court lacks authority to sua sponte dismiss a case under AOSC20-23 or Binger v. King Pest Control, and any dismissal as a sanction for violating a pretrial order requires notice, opportunity to be heard, and compliance with the Kozel standard.

Headnotes

[1] A circuit court may not sua sponte dismiss a case solely based on Florida Administrative Order No. …

[2] A court must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing sanctions, including dismissal, for violating a pretrial order.

Previewing 2 of 3 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
Key Quotes

“AOSC20-23 did not, on its own, give a circuit court the authority to sua sponte dismiss a case.”

Court's analysis of the Administrative Order's scope and limitations.
Facts & Procedural History

Brian Fritz brought an action against Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company. The circuit court dismissed the case without notice to Fritz, citing the…

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.

Topics
Sua Sponte Dismissal Sanctions For Discovery Violations Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard Discovery Violations

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sua Sponte Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19- 010393.

David A. Neblett, John A. Wynn and James M. Mahaffey III of Perry & Neblett, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Todd L. Wallen of Wallen ׀ Kelley, Coral Gables, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Brian Fritz appeals the circuit court’s final order dismissing his case against Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company. The circuit court dismissed the case, without notice to Fritz, for failure to comply with the circuit court’s trial order. We reverse. While the parties dispute the specific authority on which the circuit court relied in dismissing the case, the court cited Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981), and In re: Comprehensive COVID-19 Emergency Measures for Florida Trial Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-23 Amendment 12 (Apr. 13, 2021), http://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/731687/file/AOSC 20-23-Amendment-12.pdf.

Neither the Administrative Order nor Binger supports dismissal. In Massey v. Thomas, 342 So. 3d 680, 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), we held that AOSC20-23 did not, on its own, give a circuit court the authority to sua sponte dismiss a case. And rather than supporting sua sponte dismissal, Binger provides the standard a court must follow when deciding whether

2

to exclude the testimony of witnesses who were not disclosed according to a pretrial order. For these reasons, the circuit court’s dismissal must be reversed. On remand, should Tower Hill seek sanctions against Fritz for violating the pretrial order, the circuit court must afford Fritz notice and an opportunity to be heard. The circuit court must also comply with the requirements of Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993), before dismissing the case as a sanction.

Reversed and remanded. CIKLIN, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Fritz v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 342 So. 3d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
    …rial Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-23 Amendment (Apr. 13, 2021), http://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/731687/file/AOSC 20-23-Amendment-12.pdf. Neither the Administrative Order nor Binger supports dismissal. In Massey v. Thomas, 342 So. 3d 680, 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), we held that AOSC20-23 did not, on its own, give a circuit court the authority to sua sponte dismiss a case. And rather than supporting sua sponte dismissal, Binger provides the standard a court must follow when deciding w…
  • Green v. Mann, 420 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
  • HCA Health Servs. of Fla., Inc. v. Jo Ann Berlin, M.D., 383 So. 3d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
    …not adhering to reasonable case management deadlines. However, “Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993), establishes the process which a trial court must follow [to impose] a sanction for failure to adhere to a deadline.” Massey v. Thomas, 342 So. 3d 680, 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). The trial court’s denial of fees in this case cannot be construed as a Kozel sanctions order because the record does not indicate the trial court either considered the Kozel factors or made any explicit findings as to thos…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw