Obregon v. Rosana Corp., Etc.
16-2104
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Leda Obregon sued Rosana Corp. d/b/a Original Uncle Tom’s Barbeque after an alleged slip-and-fall on May 14, 2012, asserting neck, back, and shoulder/arm injuries; complaint filed September 24, 2015.
- In written discovery and deposition, Obregon failed to disclose numerous prior healthcare providers, prior diagnoses (including a pre-existing cervical herniated disc), prior auto-accident treatment, and insurance payments relevant to her injury claims.
- Defendant Uncle Tom’s obtained medical, insurer, PIP, and social-security-disability-related records via subpoenas and the plaintiff’s disability counsel, uncovering many undisclosed providers and documentary evidence contradicting Obregon’s discovery responses and deposition testimony.
- Records showed pre-existing cervical disc herniation diagnoses dating to 2009–2011 and a 2011 auto accident with multiple treatments—contradicting Obregon’s denials of those facts and of insurance payments.
- Based on the nondisclosures and misrepresentations, Uncle Tom’s moved to strike Obregon’s pleadings for fraud on the court; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Uncle Tom’s also sought attorney’s fees under Florida’s proposal-for-settlement statute, but the trial court denied entitlement based on an asserted ambiguity in the release language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice for fraud on the court was appropriate | Obregon argued the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing and that nondisclosures were not willful | Uncle Tom’s argued Obregon knowingly omitted and misrepresented material facts and records, warranting dismissal | Affirmed: trial court’s strike/dismissal supported by clear and convincing evidence; no preserved objection to hearing form |
| Whether Uncle Tom’s appeal of denial of attorney’s fees was procedurally defective as a cross-appeal | Obregon argued the post-judgment denial should have been appealed separately, so the cross-appeal is improper | Uncle Tom’s filed a timely notice labeled as a cross-appeal but identified the order and attached it; no prejudice to Obregon | Treated as timely appeal (not dismissed) because no prejudice to appellee; court addressed merits |
| Whether the proposal-for-settlement/release contained ambiguous language that defeated fee entitlement | Obregon argued the release’s inclusion of “legal representatives” made the release ambiguous and unenforceable | Uncle Tom’s argued the release language was clear and similar language has been held enforceable | Reversed: release was clear and enforceable; trial court’s denial of fees reversed and remanded for fee proceedings |
| Standard of proof required to strike pleadings for fraud on the court | Obregon contended clear and convincing proof was not shown | Uncle Tom’s relied on documentary record showing contradictions between sworn discovery/deposition and records | Court applied clear-and-convincing standard and found it met based on documentary contradictions and nondisclosures |
Key Cases Cited
- Empire World Towers, LLC v. CDA Creances, S.A.S., 89 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (clear-and-convincing standard to strike pleadings for fraud on the court)
- McKnight v. Evancheck, 907 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming dismissal for fraud based on omitted medical history)
- Distefano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 846 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (dismissal proper where omissions were willful and bore on damages)
- Metro. Dade Cty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (case dismissed where incomplete discovery hampered fair adjudication)
- MGR Equip. Corp. v. Wilson Ice Enters., Inc., 731 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1999) (statutory entitlement to fees under proposal-for-settlement is mandatory if prerequisites met)
- Board of Trustees of Fla. Atlantic Univ. v. Bowman, 853 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (inclusion of parties’ legal representatives in release did not render proposal ambiguous)
- Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 202 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2016) (interpreting fee entitlement under proposal-for-settlement framework)
- Key West Seaside, LLC v. Certified Lower Keys Plumbing, Inc., 208 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (discussion of proposal-for-settlement enforcement)