J.T.R., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
AHMED EL HADRI, 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.
J.T.R., Inc. appeals a trial court order striking its pleadings and entering a default judgment on liability for breach of contract after the defendant willfully violated discovery orders by falsely claiming documents were in its accountant's possession during an IRS audit that did not exist. The appellate court affirmed the sanctions, finding ample evidence of deliberate misrepresentation and contumacious disregard for court orders.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the defendant's pleadings and entering default on liability as a sanction for willful and contumacious disregard of prior court orders requiring document production, as evidenced by the defendant's false statements to the court about the whereabouts of the documents.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in striking a defendant's pleadings and entering a default on liability as a sanction for willful and contumacious disregard o…
[2] A party's deliberate misrepresentation to the court regarding the possession of discovery documents, which is later contradicted by undisputed evidence, supports a findin…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the defendant's pleadings and entering the default on liability as a sanction for such willful disobedience”
Establishes the standard of review and the court's holding that sanction was appropriate
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.T.R., Inc. failed to comply with two court orders requiring production of discovery documents. The defendant claimed in a response to the second ord…
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 Disobedience cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant J.T.R., Inc. from a non-final order striking its pleadings-and entering a default on liability against it in an action for breach of contract and related claims; we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).
The trial court struck the defendant’s pleadings after the defendant had failed to comply with two prior court orders requiring the production of certain discovery documents, upon a finding that the defendant “deliberately misrepresented” in a response to the second court order [requiring production on a date certain else defendant’s pleadings would be stricken] that such documents were in the possession of the defendant J.T.R., Inc.’s corporate accountant in connection with a complete I.R.S. audit of the defendant’s business — which documents, to the extent available, were allegedly open for inspection at the accountant’s office. However, according to the undisputed affidavit of the accountant, which was filed below, there was no I.R.S. audit of any kind of the defendant’s business and the accountant did not have any of the requested documents; the accountant further averred that he expressly informed the defendant’s counsel of these facts the same day on which the defendant filed the false response, which response was never amended or corrected.
Based on the above undisputed facts, the trial court found that “no I.R.S. audit exists, and ... the accountant Donald Siple does not have possession of the requested documents,” [contrary to the defendant’s deliberate misrepresentations in its response], and, accordingly, the failure of the defendant to produce the requested documents constitutes “a willful and contumacious disregard” of its prior order requiring production of the requested documents. Clearly, there was ample evidence adduced below that the defendant willfully and contemptuously refused to comply with prior court orders requiring production of the subject documents by giving a false story to the court concerning the whereabouts of same; accordingly, under established Florida law, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the defendant’s pleadings and entering the default on liability as a sanction for such willful disobedience. Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983); Georges v. Insurance Technicians, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
For the above-stated reasons, the order under review is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 851 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ffe, 804 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(finding no abuse of discretion in striking franchiser’s pleadings based upon continued “foot dragging” and considerable delay in producing documents and participating in deposition); J.T.R., Inc. v. El Hadri, 632 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(holding that striking of pleadings and entry of default were within trial court’s discretion where there was ample evidence that defendant willfully and contemptuously refused to comply with prior court orders requiring production…
Authorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Georges v. Ins. Technicians, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)