Ross Dress for Less Virginia, Inc. v. Castro
2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3062
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Ross Dress for Less Virginia, Inc. and U.S. Security Associates, Inc. seek certiorari to overturn a civil contempt order and sanctions for discovery violations.
- Castros sued for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and slander arising from Castro’s arrest after alleged shoplifting at a Ross Miracle Mile store.
- Discovery sought included Ross policy manuals and incident/apprehension reports; Ross and U.S. Security objected asserting privilege and non-possession.
- Multiple judges issued conflicting orders regarding production of incident reports and whether documents were protected work product.
- Soca, a non-party, produced some reports; plaintiffs later sought broader production and sanctions; the trial court entered severe sanctions including default and punitive-damages amendments.
- The appellate court ultimately quashes the May 3, 2013 order in its entirety and remands for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of daily civil contempt sanction | Castros argue sanctions were proper for noncompliance with clear orders. | Ross/U.S. Security contend they cannot further comply; orders were unclear and they lack ability to produce more documents. | Quashed; sanctions vacated due to lack of clear directives and lack of ability to comply. |
| Amendment to add punitive damages | Castros claim punitive damages may be added as a sanction for bad faith conduct. | Defendants argue procedural requirements of §768.72 were not met and no evidentiary basis was shown. | Quashed; failure to satisfy §768.72 evidentiary requirements. |
| Striking pleadings and default | Court's contempt findings and spoliation instruction warrant severe sanctions. | Record did not show a refusal to obey with clear directives; there was no proven destruction of evidence. | Quashed; no clear evidence of refusal to comply justifying striking pleadings or default. |
| Sanctions for fees/costs beyond 2008 | Sanctions were owed for years of noncompliance and to deter further misconduct. | Sanctions cannot be sustained absent clear evidence of ongoing violation after proper proceedings. | Quashed; remainder of sanctions reversed. |
| Remand to preserve trial on merits | Case should proceed with the punitive-damages issue and remaining claims. | Sanctions should be set aside but case can proceed on merits with proper discovery. | Remanded; May 3 order quashed and case to proceed to trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck’s Transfer, Inc. v. Peairs, 532 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (contempt requires competent evidence that documents exist)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla. 1995) (procedural requirements for punitive damages inquiry)
- Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1996) (procedural prerequisites for punitive damages claims)
- Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe, 44 So.3d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (reaffirming procedural safeguards for punitive damages amendment)
- Cypress Aviation, Inc. v. Bollea, 826 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (need evidentiary basis before punitive damages amendment)
- Zayres Department Stores v. Fingerhut, 383 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (discovery value in false imprisonment cases and limited relevance of remote prior incidents)
- Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (discovery purposes and fairness in pretrial process)
- Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So.2d 422 (Fla.1977) (key rule on purgeability in civil contempt (key to compliance))