ELVIS HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 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.
Elvis Hernandez appealed the dismissal of his personal injury lawsuit against the City of Miami and Florida Department of Transportation for injuries from falling into a defective storm drain. The trial court had dismissed the case after striking his pleadings as sham based on alleged fraud, but the appellate court reversed, finding the trial court lacked sufficient evidentiary basis to support such a drastic sanction.
The trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Hernandez's claim because there was no clear and convincing evidentiary basis to support a finding of fraud on the court. The dismissal sanction requires a high threshold of proof and must be exercised cautiously and sparingly.
[1] A trial court possesses inherent authority to dismiss an action as a sanction for fraud on the court, but this power must be exercised cautiously and sparingly.
[2] Fraud on the court requires clear and convincing evidence that a party intentionally initiated a scheme to interfere with the judicial process by improperly influencing t…
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“A trial court has the inherent authority to dismiss an action as a sanction when the plaintiff has perpetuated a fraud on the court. However, this power should be exercised cautiously, sparingly, and only upon a clear showing of fraud on the court.”
Establishes the strict standard for dismissal based on fraud on the court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHernandez fell into a defective storm drain on a City sidewalk and sued for injuries to his left leg and back, and exacerbation of a preexisting condi…
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 Inherent Authority Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Elvis Hernandez appeals from the trial court’s order striking sham pleadings and dismissing a personal injury claim with prejudice. We reverse.
Hernandez sued the City of Miami (“the City”) and Florida Department of Transportation (“DOT”) for injuries sustained after falling into a defective storm drain on a City sidewalk. Hernandez’s complaint alleged injuries to his left leg and back, and that he suffered exacerbation of a preexisting condition.
DOT moved to strike sham pleadings. DOT alleged fraud because there were discrepancies in Hernandez’s answers to interrogatories and during deposition testimony regarding his injuries. The trial court struck the pleadings and dismissed the case with prejudice. This appealed followed.
Hernandez asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his claim. DOT and the City contend that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Hernandez’s claim for fraud on the court. We agree with Hernandez and reverse.
A trial court has the inherent authority to dismiss an action as a sanction when the plaintiff has perpetuated a fraud on the court. However, this power should be exercised cautiously, sparingly, and only upon a clear showing of fraud on the court. Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 993 So.2d 1014, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Fraud on the court occurs where there is clear and convincing evidence “that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.” 993 So.2d at 1018 (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir.1989)).
A trial court’s decision on whether to dismiss a case for fraud on the court is reviewed under a narrow abuse of discretion standard. See Cherubino v. Fenstersheib & Fox, P.A., 925 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). For the trial court to properly exercise its discretion, there must be an evidentiary basis to dismiss the case. See Ramey, 993 So.2d at 1018.
Here, the trial court did not have a clear and convincing evidentiary basis to dismiss the case for fraud on the court. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in striking the pleadings and dismissing with prejudice Hernandez’s claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rusniaczek v. Tableau Fine ART Grp., Inc., 139 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…egarding the validity and truthfulness of Tableau’s claim for relief. Thus, the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Rusniaczek could produce clear and convincing evidence of fraud. See Hernandez v. City of Miami, 35 So. 3d 942, 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (stating that the party seeking relief must prove a fraud on the court claim by clear and convincing evidence at the evidentiary hearing). We further hold that the liquidated damages provision of the parties’ contract cannot…
-
State v. Conroy, 118 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…der an abuse of discretion standard. See e.g., State v. Gillis, 876 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (applying abuse of discretion standard to review dismissal of informa [*309] tion based upon violation of discovery rules); Hernandez v. City of Miami, 35 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (applying abuse of discretion standard to review court’s dismissal of civil action as a sanction). To the extent our review involves the trial court’s interpretation or construction of the speedy trial rule itself, the standard of…
-
Chess v. Sweeney (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…failed to establish fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence, see Chess v. Sweeney, 325 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Chess I”), we reverse and remand the monetary sanctions on the same basis.1 See also Hernandez v. City of Miami, 35 So. 3d 942, 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Fraud on the court occurs where there is clear and convincing evidence ‘that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjud…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Salim Aoude v. Mobil OIL Corp., 892 F.2d 1115 (1st Cir. 1989)
- Sonny Ramey and Vicky Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., Inc., 993 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Cherubino v. Fenstersheib & FOX, P.A., 925 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)