Case Name: Jack JUBRAN, Appellant, v. BAY COURT TOWERS CONDOMINIUM, INC., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2014-04-16
Citations: 137 So. 3d 1194
Docket Number: No. 3D12-2503
Parties: Jack JUBRAN, Appellant, v. BAY COURT TOWERS CONDOMINIUM, INC., et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before SUAREZ, SALTER and EMAS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 137
Pages: 1194–1194

Head Matter:
Jack JUBRAN, Appellant, v. BAY COURT TOWERS CONDOMINIUM, INC., et al., Appellees.
No. 3D12-2503.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 16, 2014.
Charles L. Truncale (Jacksonville), for appellant.
Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A. and William F. Fink and David R. Cook; White & Case, LLP and Raoul G. Cantero and Maria J. Beguiristain and Michelle Holmes Johnson, for appellees.
Before SUAREZ, SALTER and EMAS, JJ.

Opinion:
EMAS, J.
Appellant Jack Jubran appeals the trial court's order granting Appellees' motion and dismissing Appellant's complaint with prejudice as a sanction for his failure to comply with numerous court orders over the course of the six years during which this action was pending below.
Jubran was represented by four different attorneys at various stages of the litigation, the last of which had withdrawn by the time the hearing was held on Appel-lees' motion to dismiss. Jubran represented himself for significant periods of time when he was "between counsel" and proceeded pro se at the hearing.
Following the hearing on the motion, the court announced its findings on the record and rendered an order which thoughtfully analyzed and applied the requisite factors under Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla.1993). The record contains competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's order of dismissal, and we find no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.