RADIO COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION; THOMAS J. BRENNAN, D/B/A RADIO COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION AND THOMAS J. BRENNAN, JOINTLY AND INDIVIDUALLY AS GUARANTOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
OKI ELECTRONICS OF AMERICA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
An appellate court vacated a trial court's order striking defendants' answer and counterclaim for failure to appear at a pre-trial conference, finding that the trial court abused its discretion because no written order had rescheduled the conference and defense counsel was never properly notified of the rescheduled date.
The trial court abused its discretion in striking defendants' pleadings because there was no written order rescheduling the pre-trial conference from May 13 to May 25, and defendants' counsel submitted an affidavit swearing that they never received notification of the date and time for the rescheduled conference.
[1] An order striking a party's pleadings for failure to appear at a rescheduled pre-trial conference may be reviewed by certiorari when no final judgment has been entered an…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by striking a party's pleadings for failure to appear at a rescheduled pre-trial conference when the record contains no order reflecti…
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“The appellants do not contest the authority of the trial court to strike pleadings for failure of a party to appear at a pre-trial conference. The appellants' position is that the trial court abused its discretion because no order was entered rescheduling the pre-trial conference from 13 May to 25 May.”
Establishes that the dispositive issue was whether proper notice and procedure for rescheduling were followed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court originally scheduled a pre-trial conference for May 13, 1971. The conference was allegedly rescheduled to May 25, 1971 at the request …
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 Pretrial Conference cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order by the trial court which was entered on 14 June 1971 striking the defendants’ answer and counterclaim because of the failure on the part of defendants’ attorneys to appear for a pre-trial conference on 25 May 1971.
The action was commenced by the filing of a complaint in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. The complaint sought to recover for goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants’ answer set up various defenses and a counterclaim for damages for breach of warranty. After a mass of pleadings and one interlocutory appeal, the trial court entered an order setting the cause for a pretrial conference on 13 May 1971. The record before us indicates that no further orders were entered rescheduling the pre*290trial conference, but plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendants’ pleadings on the ground that defendants failed to appear at a pre-trial conference on 25 May 1971 at 10:30 a. m. The trial court found that the pre-trial conference was rescheduled for the date mentioned in the motion at the request of and to accommodate the defendants, whose attorneys failed to appear. As a result, the trial court granted the motion and struck the answer and counterclaim. This order is the subject of the present appeal.
From a procedural standpoint, it appears to us that the order striking defendants’ pleadings is not a final judgment which will support a full appeal nor is it an order in a cause formerly cognizable in equity so as to support an interlocutory appeal. We may, however, within our statutory discretion (§ 59.45, F.S.1971, F.S.A.), treat the notice of appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari and review the order on that basis.
The appellants do not contest the authority of the trial court to strike pleadings for failure of a party to appear at a pre-trial conference. The appellants’ position is that the trial court abused its discretion because no order was entered rescheduling the pre-trial conference from 13 May to 25 May. Appellants claim they were not otherwise advised of the date for the second pre-trial conference. We have no way of knowing whether this assertion by the appellants is true or false. We do note, however, that the record before us contains no order rescheduling the pretrial conference. In view of this and in view of the affidavit submitted by the appellants’ counsel in opposition to the motion to strike the pleadings in which the appellants’ counsel swore that he never received notification of the date or time for the second pre-trial conference, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in striking the defensive pleadings and the counterclaim.
Accordingly certiorari is granted, the order under review is vacated, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
CROSS, J„ and WHITE, JOSEPH S., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)…. Feldman, 351 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Hotel Roosevelt Co. v. Hill, 196 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); But see Radio Communications Corp. v. Oki Electronics of America, Inc., 277 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Lovi v. North Shore Bank, 137 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 143 So. 2d 492 (1962). Orders granting discovery, on the other hand, have traditionally been reviewed by certiorari. See e.g., Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley…
-
R.S. Johnson v. Citizens State Bank, 537 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1989)…te v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 442 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Hackenberg v. Artesian Pools of East Florida, Inc., 440 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Radio Communications Corp. v. Oki Electronics of America, Inc., 277 So. 2d 289, 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).2 Indeed, a district court shall not dismiss a timely filed notice of appeal, if upon consideration, the court concludes that relief would be [*98] warranted under a petition. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(…
-
Wiley Ulee Pridgen v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Orange Cnty., 389 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…. 2d 541 (1942); Wainwright v. Booth, 291 So. 2d 74 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). Similarly courts have allowed an improperly filed interlocutory appeal to be treated as a petition for certiorari. Radio Communications Corp. v. Oki Electronics of America, Inc., 277 So. 2d 289 (Fla.4th DCA 1973); Stein v. Bayfront Medical Center, Inc., 287 So. 2d 401 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). Against this background of judicial precedents, the Florida Supreme Court adopted Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c), which provides: If a part…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence