ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF MILBURN MILLS, APPELLANT,
v.
LUIS ANTONIO CAOS, 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.
Allstate Insurance appealed a trial court order dismissing its complaint without prejudice based on an oral motion by the defendant citing failure to comply with a pretrial order regarding witness lists. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that oral motions for dismissal at trial are proper when opposing counsel is present and not surprised or injured.
The court held that an order based on an oral motion for dismissal at trial is proper when opposing counsel is present, there is no element of surprise or injury to the client, the motion is reduced to writing, and the procedure tends toward just and expeditious disposition of the cause.
[1] A trial court may properly dismiss a case based on an oral motion made at the time of trial, even if the plaintiff has not completed presenting evidence, provided the req…
[2] A dismissal for failure to comply with a pretrial order requiring the exchange of witness lists is permissible.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“an order based on an oral motion at a pretrial conference, was proper”
Establishes that oral motions are permissible in pretrial contexts when procedural safeguards are present
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case was called for trial on Allstate's complaint and the defendant's answer and counterclaim. Before Allstate had completed presenting its eviden…
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 Witness List Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff’s and defendant’s causes of action, without prejudice, after the case was called for trial on the plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s answer and counterclaim. The dismissal was entered pursuant to an oral motion made by the defendant before plaintiff had rested his case, alleging failure of the plaintiff to comply with the court’s pretrial order requiring the parties to furnish a list of the witnesses to each other. The court found that both plaintiff and counter-claimant had failed to comply with such order, and entered the order of dismissal, later amended to be without prejudice.
Appellant contends that the defendant-counter-claimant was not entitled to move ore tenus for a dismissal during the trial as such procedure is contrary to Florida Civil Procedure, Rule 1.420(b), 30 F.S.A., which requires notice of hearing as provided for under Rule 1.090(d). It is our view that such rule is inapplicable in the instant case.
The appellant’s point on appeal is whether a defendant is entitled to move for a dismissal at the time of trial when such motion is heard ore tenus without any notice, and when the plaintiff has not completed the presentation of his evidence. We hold that an order based upon such a motion is proper. In Coggan v. Coggan, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 902, the court held that an order, based on an oral motion at a pretrial conference, was proper. In examining appellant’s intentions, the court noted as follows:
“The appellant contends that a motion may not be made orally except at a ‘trial or hearing’ and that no case has been cited to us in which a pretrial conference has been held to be a ‘hearing’ within the meaning of the rule. We hold that it is. The requirements of the Rules are met by the presence of opposing counsel, the absence of surprise to him or injury to his client, the reduction to writing of the motion and the ruling thereon and, *54above all, the tendancy of the motion toward the just and expeditious disposition of the cause.” Id. at 903.
We find no error in the procedure followed by the trial court in the instant case, and we hereby hold that its order of dis missal without prejudice should be affirmed.
Affirmed.