Case Name: Jerry Jack KELLEY, Edward Norman Mathewson, Henry John Zpaitz, and Richard Edward Berard, Appellants, v. Willie SCHMIDT, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-01-15
Citations: 613 So. 2d 918
Docket Number: No. 91-2256
Parties: Jerry Jack KELLEY, Edward Norman Mathewson, Henry John Zpaitz, and Richard Edward Berard, Appellants, v. Willie SCHMIDT, Appellee.
Judges: W. SHARP, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 613
Pages: 918–922

Head Matter:
Jerry Jack KELLEY, Edward Norman Mathewson, Henry John Zpaitz, and Richard Edward Berard, Appellants, v. Willie SCHMIDT, Appellee.
No. 91-2256.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan. 15, 1993.
Rehearing Denied March 5, 1993.
Mark Ellis Solomon, Orlando, for appellants.
James P. Kelaher and Neva M. Kelaher of Kelaher & Wieland, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.

Opinion:
MUSLEH, V.J., Associate Judge.
Appellants seek reversal of the trial court's order striking their pleadings and entering a default judgment in favor of appellee (including treble damages) on ap-pellee's counterclaim for civil theft. Appellants argue that such action by the trial court was an abuse of discretion. This court agrees with appellants.
This case arose as a dispute between the five members of a lottery pool. When the pool purchased a winning "Fantasy Five" ticket, appellants discovered that appellee had purchased a duplicate winning ticket privately and outside the pool. Appellants sued the appellee for breach of an oral contract, alleging that appellee's purchase of a duplicate lottery ticket violated their pool agreement. Appellants sought an eighty percent share of appellee's duplicate ticket. Appellee counterclaimed, alleging conversion and civil theft of his twenty percent interest in the pool's winning ticket which appellants retained.
The trial judge set the matter for jury trial by order dated April 3, 1991 which provided inter alia, for an exchange of witness lists, set a pretrial hearing for July 15, and required mediation prior to the pretrial conference. Counsel for appellants failed to attend the April 15 pretrial, was late for a rescheduled pretrial on August 26, and showed up on the trial date without the required witness list, exhibit list, or jury instructions. Upon motion of appel-lee's counsel, the trial judge struck appellants' pleadings, dismissed their cause of action, and entered a default judgment on appellee's counterclaim for civil theft, including an award of treble damages. This appeal ensued.
At the outset we observe that trial courts have a broad range of sanctions to enforce pretrial compliance and that a district court may not overturn a trial court's decision imposing sanctions absent an abuse of discretion. First Republic Corp. v. Hayes, 431 So.2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 441 So.2d 632 (Fla.1983). One of the sanctions available for failure to comply with pretrial orders is the striking of pleadings. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.200(c). However, the striking of a party's pleadings resulting in either dismissal or a default judgment is the most severe sanction. It should be used sparingly and reserved to those instances where the conduct is flagrant, willful or persistent. Morales v. Perez, 445 So.2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA), cause dismissed, 453 So.2d 44 (Fla.1984); Masons Concrete of Crystal River, Inc. v. Corbin Well Pump & Supply, Inc., 364 So.2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 457 (Fla.1979); Hart v. Weaver, 364 So.2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
The Florida Supreme Court's recent requirement of an express written finding of willfulness in any order striking a party's pleadings which results in a dismissal or a default judgment, and the lack of such finding in the instant case, mandates a reversal. Commonwealth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271 (Fla.1990). Although we are mindful of the supreme court's admonition in Tube-ro that no "magic words" are required, the trial court's order in this case is devoid of any finding of willfulness. Tubero, 569 So.2d at 1273. The order recited the specific failures of appellants' counsel to comply with its pretrial order. It declared that the attorney had offered "no justifiable excuse" for his defaults even though he offered explanations for his dereliction, albeit insufficient. The court concluded that counsel "exhibited a continuing and repeated failure to comply" with the pretrial order.
That is not, in our view, the equivalent of an express finding of willful or contumacious behavior. The record in this case reveals appellants' counsel as sloppy, inattentive and inadequate but not willful or contumacious. Moreover, when pressed by the trial judge, appellee's counsel could not represent that any irrevocable prejudice had been incurred as a result of counsel's noncompliance.
When a party fails to comply with a pretrial order, the authority to sanction is not unbridled; the sanction imposed must be commensurate with the offense. Insua v. World Wide Air, Inc., 582 So.2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We note that numerous, less onerous sanctions were available to the trial judge. Counsel agreed to the acceptance of appellee's witness list, his proposed jury instructions, and his exhibit list. These sanctions would have negated any prejudice to the appellee and allowed the parties their day in court. Traditionally, contempt has been the sanction used to punish counsel. Rather than using the scalpel, the trial judge has chosen the atomic bomb. We align ourselves with those rulings which hold that:
The court unquestionably has power to discipline counsel for refusal or failure to meet the requirements of [Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200]. Such refusal may warrant a citation for contempt or a lesser degree of punishment, but it is our view that the major punishment for such delicts should be imposed on counsel rather than on the litigant. (emphasis added)
Beasley v. Girten, 61 So.2d 179, 180 (Fla.1952); Crystal Lake Golf Course, Inc. v. Kalin, 252 So.2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Goldman v. Tabor, 239 So.2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970).
We cannot condone counsel's failure to comply with the court's pretrial order but we hold that it was an abuse of the trial court's discretion to strike the appellants' pleadings, and enter default judgment against them. Accordingly, the final judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate appellants' pleadings and to allow the matter to proceed to trial. However, the trial court may impose other appropriate sanctions in its discretion.
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
W. SHARP, J., concurs.
GOSHORN, C.J., dissents with opinion.
. (1) Although he did not set up the mediation (as ordered by the court) he and his clients attended a mediation session organized by the defendant's attorney. It lasted four to five hours and proved to be unsuccessful.
(2) He did attend one pretrial conference when the case was set before another circuit judge. He arrived late for the second conference, with this judge. He explained he had been delayed at another court proceeding and had been confused about where this judge's chambers were located.
(3) He did not supply the court or opposing counsel with his proposed jury instructions in advance of the trial. He explained he was used to trying criminal cases, where the instructions were "hammered out" after the trial, and in a prior civil case tried with another judge, that is how the instructions were handled. Further, opposing counsel had just hand-delivered his proposed instructions, tbe night before the trial was to begin. As a fail-back position, he offered to accept opposing counsel's instructions, although he had not yet had time to study them in full.
(4) He admitted he had not furnished his list of witnesses. But he said he thought he had furnished such a list in connection with an earlier pretrial conference. In any event, he said this is a simple case involving a disputed oral contract to share the winnings of a lottery ticket between five people. The five people involved comprise thé four plaintiffs and the defendant, and would be the sole witnesses. He wanted to call the wife of one of his clients in addition because she had had a telephone conversation with the defendant. All the witnesses were known and known well to the parties and the attorneys. As a fail-back position, he agreed he would be limited at trial to calling only persons on the appellee's witness list.
(5) He had not furnished opposing counsel with his list of exhibits, but he had none other than the lottery ticket itself. That morning pri- or to trial, he had gone over the defendant's proposed exhibits with the defendant's attorney, and thought they had agreed to all the documents which would be exhibits at the trial.