Court Opinion

ID: 9405413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 15:11:09.819312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.782248
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

                              BRIAN FRITZ,
                                Appellant,

                                    v.

          TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY,
                          Appellee.

                              No. 4D22-870

                             [June 28, 2023]

   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19-
010393.

  David A. Neblett, John A. Wynn and James M. Mahaffey III of Perry &
Neblett, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

   Todd L. Wallen of Wallen ‫ ׀‬Kelley, Coral Gables, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

   Brian Fritz appeals the circuit court’s final order dismissing his case
against Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company. The circuit court
dismissed the case, without notice to Fritz, for failure to comply with the
circuit court’s trial order. We reverse.

   While the parties dispute the specific authority on which the circuit
court relied in dismissing the case, the court cited Binger v. King Pest
Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981), and In re: Comprehensive COVID-19
Emergency Measures for Florida Trial Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No.
AOSC20-23          Amendment          12       (Apr.     13,      2021),
http://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/731687/file/AOSC
20-23-Amendment-12.pdf.

   Neither the Administrative Order nor Binger supports dismissal. In
Massey v. Thomas, 342 So. 3d 680, 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), we held that
AOSC20-23 did not, on its own, give a circuit court the authority to sua
sponte dismiss a case. And rather than supporting sua sponte dismissal,
Binger provides the standard a court must follow when deciding whether
to exclude the testimony of witnesses who were not disclosed according to
a pretrial order.

   For these reasons, the circuit court’s dismissal must be reversed. On
remand, should Tower Hill seek sanctions against Fritz for violating the
pretrial order, the circuit court must afford Fritz notice and an opportunity
to be heard. The circuit court must also comply with the requirements of
Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993), before dismissing the case
as a sanction.

   Reversed and remanded.

CIKLIN, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

                            *        *         *

    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                     2