Alsina v. Gonzalez, 83 So. 3d 962

Alsinas filed a complaint in April 2007 against Gonzalezes for adverse possession and boundary dispute relief.
Gonzalezes counterclaimed for slander of title and statutory building code violations.
Calendar calls were scheduled for April 9, 2009; October 9, 2009; and March 12, 2010, but Alsinas’ counsel failed to appear each time.
Gonzalezes moved to strike the Alsinas’ pleadings at an ore tenus calendar-call motion, which the trial court granted as a sanction.
The court also awarded some attorney’s fees to Gonzalezes for the calendar-call proceedings.
Alsinas’ counsel moved to set aside the dismissal; the trial court denied the motion after an unrecorded hearing.
Gonzalezes moved for summary judgment on counterclaims, and the court entered summary judgment as pleadings were stricken.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the sanction of striking pleadings an abuse of discretion?	Alsinas argues miscommunication and calendaring errors; sanctions should be lesser.	Gonzalezes contend willful noncompliance warranted dismissal.	Reversed and remanded for Kozel-based analysis.
Did the trial court properly apply Kozel v. Ostendorf factors on sanctions?	Kozel factors were not considered in the original order; need full analysis.	Sanction appropriate given willful misconduct and repeated violations.	Remand required for proper Kozel analysis.

Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993) (six factors for dismissal sanctions)
Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492 (Fla. 2004) (litigant involvement not exclusively required; balance factors)
Erdman v. Bloch, 65 So.3d 62 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (abuse of discretion review and Kozel framework)
Bennett v. Tenet St. Mary’s, Inc., 67 So.3d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (context for remand when Kozel factors not applied)
Smith v. City of Panama City, 951 So.2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (remand where sanction analysis incomplete)