mix factors in Florida

2023Further, “[w]hen reviewing a case for fraud, the court ‘should consider the proper mix of factors’ and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication on the merits with competing policies to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.” Cox, 706 So. 2d at 46 (quoting Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1118 ).

2023"When reviewing a case for fraud, the court should 'consider the proper mix of factors' and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication on the merits 3 with competing policies to maintain the integrity of the judicial system." Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobile Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1117-18 (1st Cir. 1989)).

2023Further, “[w]hen reviewing a case for fraud, the court ‘should consider the proper mix of factors’ and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication on the merits with competing policies to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.” Cox, 706 So. 2d at 46 (quoting Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1118 ).

2023"When reviewing a case for fraud, the court should 'consider the proper mix of factors' and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication on the merits 3 with competing policies to maintain the integrity of the judicial system." Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobile Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1117-18 (1st Cir. 1989)).

2020The reviewing court should “consider the proper mix of factors and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication on the merits with competing policies to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.” Gilbert v. Eckerd Corp. of Fla., 34 So. 3d 773, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

2012See Gilbert, 34 So.3d at 776 .

2023"Because 'dismissal sounds the "death knell of the lawsuit," courts must reserve such strong medicine for instances where the defaulting party's misconduct is correspondingly egregious.' " Id. (quoting Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1118 ). "[D]ismissal is the most severe of all possible sanctions" and, therefore, "should be employed only in extreme circumstances." Id. (first citing Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); and then citing Bird v. Hardrives of Delray, Inc., 644 So. 2d 89, 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)).

2020“The trial court has the inherent authority, in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when the plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court . . . .” Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138 , 139 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

2023"Because 'dismissal sounds the "death knell of the lawsuit," courts must reserve such strong medicine for instances where the defaulting party's misconduct is correspondingly egregious.' " Id. (quoting Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1118 ). "[D]ismissal is the most severe of all possible sanctions" and, therefore, "should be employed only in extreme circumstances." Id. (first citing Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); and then citing Bird v. Hardrives of Delray, Inc., 644 So. 2d 89, 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)).

2014Inc. v. Southwick, Inc., 103 So.3d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“[T]he inherent authority to dismiss actions based on fraud ... should be used ‘cautiously and sparingly,’ and only upon the most blatant showing of fraud, pretense, collusion, or other similar wrong doing.” (quoting Granados v. Zehr, 979 So.2d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008))); Gautreaux v. Maya, 112 So.3d 146, 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“When reviewing a case for fraud, the court should consider the proper mix of factors and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication on the merits with competing policies to maintain the in

2014Inc. v. Southwick, Inc., 103 So.3d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“[T]he inherent authority to dismiss actions based on fraud ... should be used ‘cautiously and sparingly,’ and only upon the most blatant showing of fraud, pretense, collusion, or other similar wrong doing.” (quoting Granados v. Zehr, 979 So.2d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008))); Gautreaux v. Maya, 112 So.3d 146, 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“When reviewing a case for fraud, the court should consider the proper mix of factors and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication on the merits with competing policies to maintain the in

2014Although a finding of fraud on the court generally has been premised on a proven outright lie on a critical issue, 4 or the destruction of determinative evidence, 5 whatever “scheme” of fraud a court finds must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that goes to “the very core issue at trial”: To support a dismissal the court must find the “false testimony was directly related to the central issue in the case.” Morgan v. Campbell, 816 So.2d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 993 So.2d 1014, 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

2014Inc. v. Southwick, Inc., 103 So.3d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“[T]he inherent authority to dismiss actions based on fraud ... should be used ‘cautiously and sparingly,’ and only upon the most blatant showing of fraud, pretense, collusion, or other similar wrong doing.” (quoting Granados v. Zehr, 979 So.2d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008))); Gautreaux v. Maya, 112 So.3d 146, 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“When reviewing a case for fraud, the court should consider the proper mix of factors and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication on the merits with competing policies to maintain the in

2014Inc. v. Southwick, Inc., 103 So.3d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“[T]he inherent authority to dismiss actions based on fraud ... should be used ‘cautiously and sparingly,’ and only upon the most blatant showing of fraud, pretense, collusion, or other similar wrong doing.” (quoting Granados v. Zehr, 979 So.2d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008))); Gautreaux v. Maya, 112 So.3d 146, 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“When reviewing a case for fraud, the court should consider the proper mix of factors and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication on the merits with competing policies to maintain the in

2014Although a finding of fraud on the court generally has been premised on a proven outright lie on a critical issue, 4 or the destruction of determinative evidence, 5 whatever “scheme” of fraud a court finds must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that goes to “the very core issue at trial”: To support a dismissal the court must find the “false testimony was directly related to the central issue in the case.” Morgan v. Campbell, 816 So.2d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 993 So.2d 1014, 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

2010“Except in the most extreme cases, where it appears that the process of trial has itself been subverted, factual inconsistencies, even false statements are well managed through the use of impeachment and traditional discovery sanctions.” Ruiz v. City of Orlando, 859 So.2d 574, 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

2005In Arzuman v. Saud, 843 So.2d 950, 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), we held that "[t]he trial court has the inherent authority, within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court." "When reviewing a case for fraud, the court should `consider the proper mix of factors' and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication *659 on the merits with competing policies to maintain the integrity of the judicial system." Arzuman, 843 So.2d at 952 (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1117-18 (1st Cir.1989)); Taylor, 893 So.2d

2005In Arzuman v. Saud, 843 So.2d 950, 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), we held that "[t]he trial court has the inherent authority, within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court." "When reviewing a case for fraud, the court should `consider the proper mix of factors' and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication *659 on the merits with competing policies to maintain the integrity of the judicial system." Arzuman, 843 So.2d at 952 (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1117-18 (1st Cir.1989)); Taylor, 893 So.2d