FRANCES O. WARRINER, APPELLANT,
v.
ALFRED P. FERRARO, AS TRUSTEE AND INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 plaintiff invoking a court's jurisdiction must abide by its lawful orders, and dismissal is a permissible sanction for non-compliance.
The plaintiff was ordered to provide a list of witnesses to the defendants but failed to do so, citing 'oversight'. The trial court dismissed the plai…
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 Compliance With Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order dismissing plaintiff’s cause with prejudice for failure to comply .with a trial court order.
By order dated April 10, 1964, plaintiff was ordered to file and serve upon counsel for the defendants a list of the names and addresses of the witnesses to be called by her at the trial of the cause. The list was to be served on or before ten days prior to trial. Plaintiff failed to comply with the order, and, upon a motion filed under Rule 1.35(b) F.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A., she suffered the dismissal herein appealed.
Having reviewed the record and the briefs, and having heard the oral arguments we find no reversible error.
There is no questioning the proposition that a plaintiff who invokes a court’s jurisdiction and seeks to avail himself of its powers and remedies does so with the understanding that he must abide by its lawful orders. The court has the inherent power to impose the sanction of dismissal for a failure to comply. Rashard v. Cappiali, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 581; Surrency v. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co., 160 Fla. 294, 35 So.2d 564 (1948); Ray v. Williams, 55 Fla. 723, 46 So. 158 (1908); State ex rel. Dillman v. Tedder, 123 Fla. 188, 166 So. 590 (1936); see also Franklin Acceptance Corporation v. Superior Electrical Industries, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 116.
Whether or not to impose the sanction of dismissal is in large measure a discretionary matter with the trial judge, Rashard v. Cappiali, supra, and, in the instant case, no abuse of discretion has been *724shown. In a lengthy complaint, as amended, plaintiff’s action sounded against over seventy named defendants. The defendants justifiably sought and were granted the right by court order to know the names of the witnesses to be called against them. Plaintiff’s reason for not furnishing the names was that it was an “oversight”. That reason is not a valid reason so as to require overthrowing the discretionary action of the trial court.
Accordingly the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Watson v. Peskoe, 407 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ide by stipulation providing that interrogatories would be answered by certain date); Riley v. Gustinger, 235 So. 2d 364 (Fla.3d DCA 1970) (defendant failed to file answers after two extensions and additional ten-day extension); Warriner v. Ferraro, 177 So. 2d 723 (Fla.3d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 319 (Fla.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 995, 87 S.Ct. 610, 17 L.Ed.2d 454 (1966) (plaintiff, claiming oversight, failed to comply with order to furnish defendants the names of witnesses to be called against…
-
Aurora Pacheco and Ubaldo Pacheco v. Ramos, 351 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. City of Miami Beach v. Chadderton, 306 So. 2d 558, 559-60 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Warriner v. Ferraro, 177 So. 2d 723 (Fla.3d DCA 1965).…
-
State v. Jones, 247 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…discretion of the trial court. Compare Monserrate v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 232 So. 2d 444; Mathews v. State, Fla.1950, 44 So. 2d 664; Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); with Warriner v. Ferraro, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 723. In this case, the trial judge has fully set forth his interpretation of the situation and the necessity for the disclosure which the state was unable or unwilling to make: ⅜ * ⅝ ⅜ * ⅜ “6. That other than the names and physical descriptions indica…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rashard v. Cappiali, 171 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Ray v. Williams, 55 Fla. 723 (Fla. 1908)
- State v. Tedder, 123 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1936)
- Surrency v. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co., 160 Fla. 294 (Fla. 1948)
- Franklin Acceptance Corp. v. Superior Elec. Indus., Inc., 167 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)