20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 285a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2003COLOInsurance — Discovery — Failure to comply — Sanctions — Dismissal
GUARANTEED HEALTH, INC., as assignee of JAVIER DEL VALLE COLON, Plaintiff, v. FIRST ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 11-CC-003927. Division H. August 20, 2012. Margaret T. Courtney, Judge. Counsel: Stuart B. Yanofsky, for Plaintiff. Steven T. Sock, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISSAND/OR FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND/OR SANCTIONS
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss and/or for Contempt of Court and/or Sanctions and argument having been heard by this Court on August 2, 2012, having been fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
2. On May 31, 2011, this Court entered an Order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s discovery within 10-days. Plaintiff failed to comply.
3. Not until September 7, 2011, after Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss and/or for Contempt and/or for Sanctions did Plaintiff provide an incomplete response, containing untimely objections.
4. On December 15, 2011, this Court did not grant Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Discovery Responses and for Attorneys Fees based on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s would be able to obtain all the information at the Plaintiff’s upcoming deposition on February 14, 2012.
5. On February 13, 2012, Plaintiff counsel advised that Plaintiff would not be appearing for the deposition.
6. The deposition of the Plaintiff’s representative was reset for June 13, 2012, where the Plaintiff again failed to appear and a Certificate of Non-Appearance was taken.
7. Following the Florida Supreme Court case of Mercer v. Raine, where default was entered when a party failed to provide discovery responses within 20-days of being ordered to do so, dismissal is within the trial courts discretion when reasonable from the vantage of the court. 443 So. 2d 944, 946 {Fla. 1983)
8. Therefore Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED.
* * *
