Good News for No-Show South Florida Lawyer Whose Client's Case Was Dismissed
According to the Fourth DCA, dismissing a case as a sanction after the plaintiff's lawyer missed a calendar call was too harsh — considering the pretrial order had been sent to the attorney's dead assistant's email address.
November 08, 2018 at 10:34 AM
4 minute read
The Fourth District Court of Appeal on Wednesday reversed a ruling that dismissed a plaintiff's case as punishment for his lawyer, who'd missed a calendar call and failed to comply with a pretrial order.
The appellate panel overturned Palm Beach Circuit Judge Judge Edward A. Garrison, who had dismissed the case March 6, after West Palm Beach lawyer Henry L. Kaye was a no-show March 1.
Days later, Kaye moved to quash the dismissal, explaining that in July 2017 his office manager of 10 years, Cynthia Phillips, had died suddenly — taking her email password with her. According to Kaye's motion, the court's order setting a trial date had been sent to Phillips' inbox, not his.
Kaye's motion was denied.
Although dismissing the case was within Garrison's discretion, the appellate court found the move too extreme. To dismiss a complaint that way, there should be explicit evidence of willful noncompliance, according to the panel, made up of Fourth DCA Judges Dorian K. Damoorgian and Mark W. Klingensmith and Broward County Court Judge Daniel J. Kanner, sitting by special designation.
Read the court order:
Kaye represented the owner of an advertising company, Neil London, in a contract and debt case brought against a customer, John Temerian. According to the 2011 complaint, Temerian owed almost $20,000 in unpaid bills and London sought $44,000 in damages, plus interest, attorney fees and costs.
At the calendar call, the case would have been set for trial sometime in March or April.
Temerian's lawyer, Shai Ozery of Robert N. Hartsell in Pompano Beach, said he was disappointed with the decision. According to Ozery, the dismissal was based on more than just one failure.
“It wasn't that everything had been done up until calendar call, and then he just simply missed calendar call,” Ozery said.
Ozery's response to Kaye's motion for rehearing pointed out that Kaye had filed a motion for trial in February 2017, so the plaintiff should have been “expecting and anticipating an action” on his own motion, and should have investigated or inquired about it.
“I don't think there was anything done on that case since he noticed it for trial in February 2017,” Ozery said.
The pre-trial order was sent out in October 2017, months ahead of the calendar call. The way Ozery sees it, Kaye's noncompliance was willful.
Kaye did not respond to a request for comment before deadline.
According to Kaye's motion, he found out the case had been dismissed through London's previous lawyer, David Mogul, who was still receiving notices. He also stated that he'd never failed to comply with a court order since being admitted to the bar in 1963.
This isn't the first time a judge's sanction has come into question. In 2015, one lawyer's bathroom break resulted in a summary judgment for the opposing counsel in a premises liability case.
Lawyer Whose Bathroom Break Caused Case to Be Tossed Wins Reversal
That attorney had thought he had enough time to go the restroom before a hearing, but Palm Beach Circuit Judge Thomas Barkdull disagreed. The decision was later reversed on appeal.
In the case of Kaye's client, London's appellate lawyer, Troy William Klein of the Law Office of Troy W. Klein in West Palm Beach, did not respond to requests for comment before deadline. The case will return to trial court for further proceedings.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 2'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 3Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 4As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
- 5Managing Partner Vindicated in Disciplinary Proceeding Brought by Former Associate
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250