Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Jonida Goga, et al., SC2024-0669

Goga slipped and fell at Publix, then sued for premises-liability damages including medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages. 1
During discovery, Goga claimed severe physical limitations in interrogatory answers and deposition testimony. 2
Publix’s surveillance videos showed Goga doing many activities she claimed she could not do, including carrying children, bending, walking with groceries, and swimming. 3
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Goga intentionally lied repeatedly and dismissed the entire action with prejudice for fraud on the court. 4
The Fourth District affirmed the fraud finding but reversed the total dismissal, applying a “more stringent” abuse-of-discretion standard and ordering reinstatement of the medical-expenses claim. 5
The Florida Supreme Court accepted conflict review to decide the proper appellate standard for fraud-on-the-court dismissals. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What standard reviews fraud-on-the-court dismissals? 7	Goga supported the Fourth District’s narrowed abuse-of-discretion review.	Publix urged ordinary review of fact findings, law, and sanction.	Traditional standards apply: factual findings, legal conclusions de novo, sanction for abuse of discretion. 8
Did the trial court properly find fraud on the court? 9	Goga claimed the evidence did not justify a fraud finding.	Publix argued her repeated lies and the videos proved pervasive fraud.	Yes; the factual findings were supported and the legal conclusion was correct. 10
Was dismissal of the entire complaint an abuse of discretion? 11	Goga argued only subjective-damages claims should be dismissed.	Publix argued the fraud permeated the whole action, justifying dismissal.	No; complete dismissal was reasonable given the breadth of the fraud. 12

Pro Choice Remediation, Inc. v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 400 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (applies traditional review: facts, law, and sanction are reviewed separately 13)
Goga v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 383 So. 3d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (below decision applying a more stringent abuse-of-discretion standard 14)
Willie-Koonce v. Mia. Sunshine Transfer & Tours Corp., 233 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (district case applying narrowed abuse-of-discretion review in fraud-on-the-court context 15)
Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (defines fraud on the court and discusses dismissal as an extreme sanction 16)
Jacob v. Henderson, 840 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (introduced a more stringent abuse-of-discretion standard for fraud dismissals 17)
Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgmt., Inc., 697 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (dismissal proper when lies permeate the entire proceeding 18)
Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (recognizes dismissal as a sanction for fraud on the court 19)
Cartenuto v. Just. Admin. Comm'n, 260 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 2018) (factual findings are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence 20)