DOLLAR WISE TRAVEL, INC., AND TASNIM UDDIN D/B/A DOLLAR WISE TRAVEL MIAMI, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ISMAIL A. AL-FAROOQUE, 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.
Trial court abused its discretion by striking defendants' pleadings for discovery violations where the violations were not willful, primarily concerned defendants' own case materials, and were largely corrected before hearing.
A trial court abuses its discretion by imposing the severe sanction of striking pleadings for discovery violations that were not willful, primarily affected the violating party's own case, and were substantially remedied before trial.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by striking pleadings as a discovery sanction when the violations were not willful, primarily affected the violating party's own case…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 violations (a) primarily concerned the appellants' failure timely to produce material in support of their own case and thus could not have prejudiced their opponents (b) for by far the most part, had been corrected at the time of the hearing and (c) were not caused by the willful acts of the appellants, but were rather solely the fault of their then-counsel”
Court's analysis of why the sanction was excessive given the nature and cure of the violations
Dollar Wise Travel, Inc. and Tasnim Uddin appealed a money judgment entered after the trial judge struck their pleadings due to alleged discovery viol…
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 Prejudice Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The defendants appeal from an adverse money judgment entered after the trial judge had stricken their pleadings because of alleged discovery violations. As to the individual defendant, that action was erroneous because he was not given appropriate notice. Hully v. Hully, 653 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). More important, the record demonstrates that the violations (a) primarily concerned the appellants’ failure timely to produce material in support of their own case and thus could not have prejudiced their opponents (b) for by far the most part, had been corrected at the time of the hearing and (c) were not caused by the willful acts of the appellants, but were rather solely the fault of their then-counsel. In these circumstances, the severity of the sanction was a clear abuse of discretion. Commomoealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla.1990), and cases cited; Clark v. Lake City Police Dep’t, 723 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and cases cited; Sinatra v. Ikaros Aviation, Inc., 723 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). See generally Summit Chase Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)(Schwartz, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Accordingly, the judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded for appropriate disposition on the merits.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Mazda Motor OF Am., Inc., 934 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…al court’s pre-trial order). Moreover, a litigant should not be punished for fault on the part of her counsel by such a severe sanction as striking her witnesses for non-compliance. Kamhi, 793 So. 2d at 1036; Dollar Wise Travel, Inc. v. Al-Farooque, 731 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); First Republic, 431 So. 2d at 627. [*522] Instead of serving to punish plaintiffs counsel for his failure to follow the provisions of the lower court’s pre-trial order, which required all discovery to have been completed before t…
-
Adele Thomas v. Feinberg, 745 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…hat reason Tubero requires a clear showing of deliberate, intentional misconduct. Indeed, in some cases the courts have taken note of whether the conduct in question was that of the client, or the lawyer. See Dollar Wise Travel, Inc. v. Al-Farooque, 731 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Clark v. Lake City Police Dept., 723 So .2d 901, 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Kelley v. Schmidt, 613 So. 2d 918, 920 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.…
Authorities Cited
- Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Moshe Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990)
- Summit Chase Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Protean Invs., Inc., 421 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Clark v. Lake City Police Dep't, 723 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Hully v. Hully, 653 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Sinatra v. Ikaros Aviation, Inc., 723 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)