Canstar International, Inc., Etc. v. WC WH Holdings, LLC, Etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 3, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1506
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 3, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1506 Lower Tribunal No. 19-999-CA-01 ________________

Canstar International, Inc., Appellant,

vs.

WC WH Holdings, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge.

Reiner & Reiner, P.A., and David P. Reiner, II; Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., P.A., and Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., for appellant.

Perez Mayoral, P.A., and Julie K. Talbot and Michael Mayoral, for appellees.

Before GORDO, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Appellant Canstar International, Inc. appeals an order dismissing its

case as a sanction. While the trial court addressed the Kozel1 factors, it

asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by doing so without

conducting an evidentiary hearing. But an evidentiary hearing is not required

where there is a sufficient evidentiary record before the trial court and it

makes the required written findings analyzing the Kozel factors. See Ham v.

Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 500 (Fla. 2004); Ofer v. Bernstein, 327 So. 3d 901,

902 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Garcia-Mathies Interiors, Inc. v. Peré, 259 So. 3d

213, 215 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). And so, the trial court did not abuse its

discretion.

Affirmed.

1 Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817, 818 (Fla. 1993).