DONALD COPPOLA, APPELLANT,
v.
ISA MCNAB, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that striking pleadings and entering a default judgment was too harsh a sanction for a first infraction of failing to meet with opposing counsel for a pre-trial statement.
Donald Coppola's counsel failed to meet with opposing counsel to draw a pre-trial statement as ordered. The trial court sanctioned Coppola by 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 Willful Violation Of Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
We reverse. Donald Coppola’s counsel failed to meet with opposing counsel to draw a pre-trial statement as ordered by the trial court. As a result, the trial court sanctioned Coppola by striking his pleadings and entering a default against him. In our view, the sanction imposed, in light of the facts of this case, was too harsh a penalty for a first infraction. See Beasley v. Girten, 61 So. 2d 179 (Fla.1952).
Within one day of learning he had been sanctioned, Coppola hired a new lawyer and immediately filed a sworn motion for reconsideration which was uncontroverted by the plaintiff. Under oath, Coppola’s new attorney offered to fully comply with all pre-trial procedures, and to try the case as scheduled or continue the matter if the plaintiff preferred. The only possible prejudice to plaintiff indicated by the record was a short delay in trying the eight-month-old case. Furthermore, there is no evidence that what Coppola did or did not do was in willful disobedience of a court order. Therefore, we conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion in sanctioning Coppola by striking his pleadings and entering a default against him. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Lime Growers, Inc. v. Bloomer Plastics, Inc., 665 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…eview of the record, the imposition of this ultimate sanction by the court below was far too severe a response to the appellants’ transgressions. See, e.g., Turano v. Michael Pirates World, Inc., 659 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Coppola v. McNab, 540 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We therefore reverse the amended final judgment and direct the court to reinstate appellants’ pleadings for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.…
-
Cushman & WAKEFÍELD OF Fla., Inc. v. Hughes, 645 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…urt, however, denied Hughes’ motion for rehearing. We have held that where non-compliance with court-ordered pretrial procedures is not willful disobedience, the sanction of dismissal is too harsh a penalty for a first infraction. Coppola v. McNab, 540 So. 2d 242, 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). In addition, where inadvertent failure to file court-ordered pretrial statement did not result in prejudice, the severe sanction of default judgment is not warranted. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 357 So. 2d 464, 465 (Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Beasley v. Girten, 61 So.2d 179 (Fla. 1952)