Marin v. Batista

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marin v. Batista

639 So. 2d 630, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6265, 1994 WL 284662

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 28, 1994

DocketNo. 93-863

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 639 So. 2d 630 (Marin v. Batista) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marin v. Batista, 639 So. 2d 630, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6265, 1994 WL 284662 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At the combined pretrial conference and calendar call in the appellant’s re-plevin, malpractice and conversion suit, the trial court dismissed the appellant’s suit with prejudice, based upon findings of misconduct on the part of appellant’s counsel with respect to the “speedy and fair” resolution of the litigation. “Dismissal of an action is a drastic remedy which should be used only in extreme situations and upon a showing of deliberate and contumacious disregard of the trial court’s authority.” Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 511 So.2d 297 (Fla.1987); see Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944, 946 (Fla.1983); World on Wheels of Miami, Inc. v. International Auto Motors, Inc., 569 So.2d 836, 837 (Fla.3d DCA 1990). Moreover, the sanction of dismissal necessarily visits the sins of the attorney upon the client/litigant. See Kozel v. Ostendorf 629 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla.1993); Wallraff v. T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc., 490 So.2d 50, 52 (Fla.1986); Beasley v. Girten, 61 So.2d 179, 180-81 (Fla.1952); Clay v. City of Margate, 546 So.2d 434, 435 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 553 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1989). Consequently, since the record reflects absolutely no malfeasance on the part of the appellant, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the appellant’s case. See Dave’s Aluminum Siding, Inc. v. C & M Ventures, 582 So.2d 147, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Herr, 539 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. [631]*6313d DCA 1989); Beauchamp, 500 So.2d at 295. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

At the combined pretrial conference and calendar call in the appellant’s re-plevin, malpractice and conversion suit, the trial court dismissed the appellant’s suit with prejudice, based upon findings of misconduct on the part of appellant’s counsel with respect to the “speedy and fair” resolution of the litigation. “Dismissal of an action is a drastic remedy which should be used only in extreme situations and upon a showing of deliberate and contumacious disregard of the trial court’s authority.” Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 511 So.2d 297 (Fla.1987); see Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944, 946 (Fla.1983); World on Wheels of Miami, Inc. v. International Auto Motors, Inc., 569 So.2d 836, 837 (Fla.3d DCA 1990). Moreover, the sanction of dismissal necessarily visits the sins of the attorney upon the client/litigant. See Kozel v. Ostendorf 629 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla.1993); Wallraff v. T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc., 490 So.2d 50, 52 (Fla.1986); Beasley v. Girten, 61 So.2d 179, 180-81 (Fla.1952); Clay v. City of Margate, 546 So.2d 434, 435 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 553 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1989). Consequently, since the record reflects absolutely no malfeasance on the part of the appellant, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the appellant’s case. See Dave’s Aluminum Siding, Inc. v. C & M Ventures, 582 So.2d 147, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Herr, 539 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. [631]*6313d DCA 1989); Beauchamp, 500 So.2d at 295. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

639 So. 2d 630, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6265, 1994 WL 284662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marin-v-batista-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack