Court Opinion

ID: 9780950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 14:08:16.35343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:46.215566
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed August 30, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1496
                     Lower Tribunal No. 20-21901 CC
                           ________________

                        Reaction Rehab, LLC,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                      Maria Jose Fletcher, et al.,
                                 Appellees.

     An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Luis Perez-
Medina, Judge.

      Law Office of Robert M. Abramson, P.L. and Robert M. Abramson
(Orlando), for appellant.

     Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz, PLLC and Alaina Fotiu-Wojtowicz and
Michael S. Olin, for appellees.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.

     Reaction Rehab, LLC appeals a final order dismissing with prejudice
its action against Maria Jose Fletcher as an ultimate sanction for discovery

misconduct, including its failure to fully comply with numerous court orders

mandating complete responses to Fletcher’s discovery requests.                We

reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to

the extent necessary to analyze and make express findings regarding each

of the six factors set forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993).

However, the trial court may ultimately find the sanction of dismissal with

prejudice is appropriate under the circumstances.

      This case arises out of Fletcher’s trip and fall accident in a shopping

center. Because of her injuries, she attended physical therapy at Reaction

Rehab.    Ultimately, Reaction Rehab sued Fletcher for unpaid services.

Fletcher answered and requested production of documents relevant to her

treatments and affirmative defenses.        Reaction Rehab failed to timely

respond. Fletcher moved to compel Reaction Rehab’s responses five times,

all of which were granted by the trial court. Reaction Rehab was also

monetarily sanctioned on two occasions. Further, the trial court warned it

would consider dismissing Reaction Rehab’s complaint as a sanction if there

were any other delays or failures to comply with court orders that would

impact scheduling the case for trial.        While Reaction Rehab partially

responded to Fletcher’s requests, it failed to fully comply with the trial court’s

                                        2
orders. Reaction Rehab’s last attempt to comply with the trial court’s orders

consisted of sending an unorganized package of hundreds of pages of

documents to Fletcher. These documents were not Bates stamped, were

not made part of the court record, and it was unclear which documents were

responsive to which requests. Further, the trial court had mandated Reaction

Rehab to indicate whether no documents existed for a request, if any, and

the package of documents sent to Fletcher included no such indications. On

Fletcher’s fifth motion to compel and for sanctions to dismiss Reaction

Rehab’s case with prejudice, the trial court granted Fletcher’s request to

dismiss, finding Reaction Rehab acted in bad faith and intentionally

prejudiced Fletcher in failing to provide complete discovery responses.

      We review the trial court’s decision to dismiss the complaint for an

abuse of discretion. Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004). “The

dismissal of an action based on the violation of a discovery order will

constitute an abuse of discretion where the trial court fails to make express

written findings of fact supporting the conclusion that the failure to obey the

court order demonstrated willful or deliberate disregard.” Id. While courts

have repeatedly recognized that dismissal of a claim for failure to comply

with discovery orders “is the most severe of all sanctions which should be

employed only in extreme circumstances,” it may be justified where the party

                                      3
shows “deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority,” or

“willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court.” Sukonik v.

Wallack, 178 So. 3d 455, 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (quoting Mercer v. Raine,

443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983)); accord Ham, 891 So. 2d at 495.

      To ensure that such a severe sanction is warranted and that a client is

not disproportionately punished for the conduct of its attorney, the Florida

Supreme Court established six factors that a trial court must consider before

dismissing a case with prejudice as a sanction. First Baptist Church of

Greater Miami v. Miami Baptist Ass’n, Inc., 2023 WL 2506384, at *1 (Fla. 3d

DCA Mar. 15, 2023) (citing Kozel, 629 So. 2d at 818). The Kozel factors are:

            1) whether the attorney's disobedience was willful,
            deliberate, or contumacious, rather than an act of
            neglect or inexperience; 2) whether the attorney has
            been previously sanctioned; 3) whether the client
            was personally involved in the act of disobedience;
            4) whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party
            through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some
            other fashion; 5) whether the attorney offered
            reasonable justification for noncompliance; and 6)
            whether the delay created significant problems of
            judicial administration.

629 So. 2d at 818. The trial court must make express findings of fact as to

each factor. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Sombrero Beach Rd., LLC, 260

So. 3d 424, 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). The need to analyze and make express

findings of fact regarding each of the Kozel factors generally requires the trial

                                       4
court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Id.

      Our recent decision in First Baptist Church is instructive. 2023 WL

2506384 at *1. In that case, we reversed a trial court’s entry of dismissal

with prejudice for failure to comply with discovery orders, finding the trial

court failed to meet the requirements of Kozel. Id. at *3. Specifically, the trial

court held a non-evidentiary hearing on the movant’s motion for dismissal,

but the movant did not argue each of the Kozel factors and the trial court’s

oral pronouncement did not include the requisite analysis or express findings

of fact related to the Kozel factors, though its written order of dismissal

adopted from the movant’s proposed order addressed five of the six factors.

Id. at *2.

      Here, while Fletcher’s written motion to dismiss did refer to the Kozel

factors, it did not specifically address each factor, instead concluding “each

of the Kozel factors weigh in favor of dismissal” and specifically addressing

only two of the factors.     Further, the transcript of the trial court’s non-

evidentiary hearing, as well as the trial court’s oral pronouncement, is devoid

of any discussion of the Kozel factors, just as in First Baptist Church. 2023

WL 2506384, at *2. While the trial court’s written order states “[t]he Court

has further considered the factors set forth in [Kozel], and each factor weighs

in favor of dismissal,” it only included express findings regarding four of the

                                        5
six factors, failing to address whether the client was personally involved in

the disobedience and whether the delay created significant problems of

judicial administration. As in First Baptist Church, the trial court’s written

order of dismissal addressing four of the factors is insufficient. Id. at *2-3.

      In analyzing whether dismissal of a lawsuit with prejudice is warranted

based on discovery misconduct, “it is critically important for the trial court to

differentiate between the actions of the client and the actions of counsel, and

to make findings of fact regarding the corresponding conduct of each.” Id. at

*2 (citing Kozel, 629 So. 2d at 818).          Fletcher cites Ledo v. Seavie

Resources, LLC, 149 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), for the proposition that

where a party is sanctioned for his own conduct, Kozel has no application,

and argues that Reaction Rehab was sanctioned for its own conduct in this

case. While the transcript of the hearing suggests Reaction Rehab may have

been responsible for part of the discovery misconduct, the trial court’s order

contained no such express finding. Further, Fletcher misconstrues Ledo. In

Ledo, this Court held that where a party is sanctioned for its own failures to

comply with court orders while acting pro se, Kozel has no application. 149

So. 3d at 710. That is because where a party is acting pro se, there is no

need for the trial court to distinguish a client’s misconduct from that of its

attorney.

                                        6
      We express no opinion on the nature and extent of the alleged

discovery misconduct in this case, nor whether such misconduct justifies the

ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice. Our holding here is that the

trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Kozel, and that absent

such compliance, reversal is required. First Baptist Church, 2023 WL

2506384, at *3. We vacate the order of dismissal with prejudice and remand

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                      7