88 So. 3d 349
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Suarezs sued Benihana for injuries from an August 4, 2006 attack at a Benihana restaurant, alleging negligence for inadequate security.
- In 2007 criminal depositions and 2011 civil deposition testimony were taken; those transcripts were part of the criminal record and civil file.
- During 2011 civil deposition Jose Suarez gave answers contradicting his 2007 criminal deposition, revealing inconsistencies.
- Anais Suarez also testified inconsistently between her criminal and civil depositions, including statements about Jose’s conduct.
- Benihana moved to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice for fraud on the court, arguing the Suarezes engaged in a deliberate scheme of lies and misrepresentations.
- The trial court dismissed with prejudice, but the Third District reversed, vacating the dismissal and remanding for reinstatement of the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice for fraud on the court was proper | Suarezs argue inconsistencies do not prove a deliberate scheme | Benihana asserts clear and convincing evidence of a collusive fraud on the court | No; dismissal with prejudice reversed |
| Whether the court abused its discretion given the record shows inconsistencies | Inconsistencies exist but do not show egregious misconduct | Record demonstrates a scheme to impede adjudication | Abuse of discretion; lesser sanctions appropriate |
| Whether the proper standard requires clear and convincing proof of fraud on the court | Fraud standard was not met given record | Higher standard supports dismissal for fraud on the court | Standard applied; nonetheless dismissal improper on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurore v. Miami Auto. Retail, Inc., 16 So.3d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (extreme sanctions only for most egregious misconduct)
- Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (fraud on the court reviewed with care and caution)
- Francois v. Harris, 366 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (trial courts should not overuse drastic sanctions; trust juries)
- Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Co., 993 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (fraud on the court requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Young v. Curgil, 358 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (extreme sanction considerations for fraud on the court)
- Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115 (1st Cir.1989) (fraud-on-the-court standard cited in balancing analysis)