Case Name: Charles MEDINA, Appellant, v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, L.L.C., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-02-22
Citations: 921 So. 2d 767
Docket Number: No. 3D04-1391
Parties: Charles MEDINA, Appellant, v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, L.L.C., Appellee.
Judges: Before LEVY and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 921
Pages: 767–768

Head Matter:
Charles MEDINA, Appellant, v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, L.L.C., Appellee.
No. 3D04-1391.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 22, 2006.
Barbara Green, for appellant.
Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans & Abel and Hinda Klein, Hollywood, for ap-pellee.
Before LEVY and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
After the hearing required by Medina v. Florida East Coast Railway, 866 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), the trial court again dismissed this personal injury action for fraud on the court on the basis of various alleged omissions and misstatements made by the plaintiff during discovery. We reverse for a jury trial because it is clear the alleged misconduct did not rise to the level of egregiousness required to merit the extreme sanction of dismissal. See Cross v. Pumpco, Inc., 910 So.2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Rios v. Moore, 902 So.2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Canaveras v. Cont'l Group, Ltd., 896 So.2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Ruiz v. City of Orlando, 859 So.2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Reversed and remanded.
. It is not necessary to reach the appellant's claim that the conduct of the hearing was improper.