BRIAN FRITZ
v.
TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY
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 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.
[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“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.
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sua Sponte Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
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 (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 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carolann D. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)
- Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981)
- Massey v. Thomas, 342 So. 3d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)