Case Name: TECHNO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Gil Lozano and Leonor Arango, Appellants, v. COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a Cooper Airmotive, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-02-23
Citations: 410 So. 2d 584
Docket Number: No. 81-278
Parties: TECHNO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Gil Lozano and Leonor Arango, Appellants, v. COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a Cooper Airmotive, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 410
Pages: 584–584

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.