Case ID: so2d_410/html/0584-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TECHNO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Gil Lozano and Leonor Arango, Appellants, v. COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a Cooper Airmotive, Appellee.
    No. 81-278.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Feb. 23, 1982.
    Rehearing Denied March 23, 1982.
    McCormick, Bedford & Backmeyer and Gerald L. Bedford, Leonardo P. Mendez, Miami, for appellants.
    High, Stack, Lazenby, Bender, Palahach & Lacasa and R. Scott Boundy, Coral Gables, for appellee.
    Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The trial judge struck the defendants’ pleadings and entered a default judgment against them because counsel filed a second motion to dismiss eleven days, rather than an answer ten days subsequent to an agreed order which so required. This was much too harsh a sanction for the minor dereliction involved and thus constituted a plain abuse of discretion. Maqueira v. Almas, 409 So.2d 199 (Fla. 3d DC A 1982); Beaver Crane Service, Inc. v. National Surety Corp., 373 So.2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Accordingly, the judgment under review is

Reversed. 
      
      . An answer was in fact filed, after the default had been entered, twelve days after the agreed order.