TIME INTL. V. SAFILO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2001 TIME INTERNATIONAL, S.A., INC. and RUBINA DE MEXICO, S.A., ** ** CASE NO. 3D00-2235 Appellants, ** vs. LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 92-4541 ** SAFILO U.S.A., INC., ** Appellee. ** Opinion filed November 14, 2001. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Jon I. Gordon, Judge. Robert S. Glazier; Addicott & Addicott (Hollywood), for appellants. Addicott, P.A., and Michael Randolph W. Adams (Fort Lauderdale); Jennifer S. Carroll and Diane F. Medley (West Palm Beach), for appellee. Before JORGENSON, GREEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ. PER CURIAM. Time International, S.A., Inc. and Rubina de Mexico, S.A., plaintiffs below, appeal from an order dismissing their complaint as a sanction for discovery violations. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. During the nine years that this action was pending, defendant Safilo, U.S.A. Inc. sought to locate a witness who was a former employee of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs provided some information about the witness only after the trial court issued various orders compelling discovery. generally The responses were incomplete, incorrect, and incompetent. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint as a sanction for their noncompliance with the orders. The trial court abused its discretion in imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal; entering a default for noncompliance with an order compelling circumstances." discovery "should employed only in extreme Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271, 1271 (Fla. 1990). sanctions," be and "should be Dismissal is "the most severe of all reserved for those aggravating circumstances in which a lesser sanction would fail to achieve a just result." Gomez-Bonilla v. Apollo Ship Chandlers, 650 So. 2d 116, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In this case, although the plaintiffs' clumsy responses to the discovery orders were inadequate and merited the imposition of some sanctions, the extreme sanction of dismissal was unwarranted. the Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reinstatement of complaint. On remand, the court is free to exercise its discretion to impose sanctions other than dismissal. The trial court further erred in dismissing the claim for fraud in the inducement. The action is not barred by the economic loss rule of as a matter law. See -2- HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1996); Hotels of Key Largo v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).1 Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 This opinion should not be read to hold that plaintiffs prevail on their claim for fraud in the inducement. Should defendants establish that the claim is not independent of the contract, the economic loss doctrine would apply. Hotels of Key Largo, 694 So. 2d at 78. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
