Civil Litigation
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Dismissal Cases: 16
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for what it deemed dilatory behavior on the part of the plaintiff’s attorney. The plaintiff’s attorney failed to respond to several discovery requests and motions for more than a year after the action commenced. The district court acknowledged this behavior as dilatory, but held that it was compelled to reverse. In order for a trial judge to grant such a dismissal, it must consider the following factors: (1) was the dilatory behavior deliberate? (2) has the attorney been previously sanctioned? (3) was the plaintiff him or herself involved in the dilatory behavior? (4) did that behavior prejudice the other party? (5) is there a reasonable expectation for the behavior? And finally (6) did the behavior cause delays in judicial administration? Without a showing that such factors were considered, the Court reversed and remanded.
Read More
The trial judge dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to effectuate service within 120 days, as required by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court reversed this dismissal, holding that the plaintiff had shown good cause for the failure to serve the defendant. The district court emphasized that the plaintiff’s process server attempted to serve the defendant 10 times within the 120 day window.
Read More
The district court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim and because it was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court held that the complaint did state a claim and that it alleged a valid basis for delayed discovery of that claim.
Read More
The trial court dismissed a plaintiff’s personal injury claim with prejudice after finding a fraud on the court by denying past medical issues. The district court reversed holding that such dismissal should be utilized only in the most blatant cases of fraud. Although the district court noted that the plaintiff’s testimony regarding the previous injuries may prevent him from claiming certain damages, it did not affect all damages or the issue of liability.
Read More
Trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellant
Read More
Trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellant
Read More
The circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering production of allegedly privileged documents without conducting an in camera inspection or holding any kind of hearing on the objections to their production.
Read More
Florida
Read More
Florida
Read More
Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice claim against defendants. Defendants refused arbitration and the parties ultimately entered into a settlement agreement. The trial court found that the insurer
Read More
Florida
Read More
In a motion for default, the party seeking relief must establish excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence. In establishing excusable neglect, a party must file an affidavit or sworn statement setting forth the facts and explaining the mistake or inadvertence. Due diligence is determined on a case-by-case basis and thus a party making an excusable neglect claim is entitled to be heard on the merits. It is up to the court to evaluate the extent and particular reasons for the delay. In the present case, the court added that even though the answer and affirmative defenses were not verified or sworn to, a motion to set aside a default should be viewed more favorably to the party attempting to vacate the default so that the trial can continue on its merits.
Read More
The court determined that a request to produce information about a third party who finances a plaintiff
Read More
In ruling on a Motion to Dismiss, the court may only evaluate allegations regarding information contained within the four corners of the complaint.
Read More
Where a voluntary dismissal is filed prior to the defendant
Read More
VanDenberg v. Rios
26 Fla. L. Weekly D2548 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 24, 2001)
2001-10-24
DISMISSAL
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint after defendants had filed a motion to dismiss, which is not a responsive pleading as contemplated by Rule 1.190. The court found that since a responsive pleading had not yet been filed, plaintiff was free to file an amended complaint without obtaining leave of court or the consent of the defendants. According to the court, the filing of an amended complaint rendered the legal sufficiency of the original complaint moot.
Read More