RELIANCE BUILDERS OF CORAL SPRINGS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND SY ELAKMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND CORAL RIDGE PROPERTIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action for alleged discovery violation was reversed because no order compelling compliance was entered before dismissal and no willful violation was found; protective order denying production of income tax records and marital dissolution documents was also reversed.
A cause of action cannot be dismissed for failure to comply with discovery demands without first entering an order compelling compliance and finding willful violation.
[1] Dismissal of a cause of action for failure to comply with discovery demands requires a prior order compelling compliance and a finding of willful violation of that order.
[2] A protective order denying production of personal financial documents such as income tax returns and marital dissolution documents must be supported by a showing of real…
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“Should the plaintiff wilfully fail to comply with an order compelling compliance with a discovery demand then the matter will be subject to being dismissed. Such an order was not entered before the matter was dismissed this time and there was no evidence or finding plaintiff wilfully violated any order of the court.”
Court explaining the proper procedure for dismissal based on discovery violations and why dismissal was improper here.
Reliance Builders and Sy Elakman appealed dismissal of their cause of action based on alleged failure to comply with discovery demands. The appellees …
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 Discovery Non-Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing the plaintiff’s cause of action for an alleged failure to comply with discovery demands. We have determined the remedy to be out of keeping with the alleged violation and thus reverse the order appealed and remand the matter for reinstatement of the cause of action. Should the plaintiff wilfully fail to comply with an order compelling compliance with a discovery demand then the matter will be subject to being dismissed. Such an order was not entered before the matter was dismissed this time and there was no evidence or finding plaintiff wilfully violated any order of the court. Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Lewis, 260 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DC A 1972); Swindle v. Reid, 242 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). We have also considered appellant’s contention he should not have to produce his income tax records and marital dissolution documents. Appellees have urged no real need to see those documents and have cited us no authority for sustaining the denial of the protective order so we must reverse that order and permit Sy Elakman to refuse to produce his marital dissolution documents and income tax returns.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BERANEK, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with opinion.
SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concurs.
BERANEK, Judge,
dissenting in part:
Although I agree with the reversal of the order dismissing plaintiff’s action, I disagree and dissent from the finding relating to tax records and marital dissolution documents. I would not reverse the trial court in this regard.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wallraff v. T.G.I. Friday's, Inc., 490 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1986)…tice. We have by petition for review Wallraff v. T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc., 470 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), due to certified conflict with Rashard v. Cappiali, 171 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and Reliance Builders, Inc. v. City of Coral Springs, 373 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. The facts are as follows: Wallraff’s complaint was filed on December 6, 1983. After answering, the defendant, T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc., filed a re…
-
Donner v. Hetherington, 376 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…hat the plaintiff disobeyed — willfully or otherwise — an order of court or committed any other act which would justify a dismissal of the action, either with or without prejudice.2 Reliance Builders of Coral Springs, Inc. v. City of Coral Springs, 373 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Beaver Crane Service, Inc. v. National Surety Corp., 373 So. 2d 88 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), and cases cited; Francois v. Harris, 366 So. 2d 851 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), and cases cited. The judgment under review is therefore reversed and th…
-
Wallraff v. T.G.I. Friday's, Inc., 470 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…omplaint or dismissing it; the court stated that the dismissal must be without prejudice unless the record reflected a violation or disregard of an order of the trial court. See also Reliance Builders of Coral Springs, Inc. v. City of Coral Springs, 373 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). With all due respect, we believe the Rashard opinion offers a strained and artificial construction of the language of the rule. Clearly, the rule contemplates that an adverse judgment may be entered against either party who is…
Authorities Cited
- Swindle v. Reid, 242 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Lewis, 260 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)