Atkin v. Kane , 246 So. 3d 574 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •        Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed July 5, 2018.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D17-1838
    Lower Tribunal No. 14-16371
    ________________
    Benjamin Atkin,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    Murray L. Kane, M.D.,
    Appellee.
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Marin,
    Judge.
    Dickinson Wright PLLC, and Alan J. Perlman and Vijay G. Brijbasi (Fort
    Lauderdale), for appellant.
    Simon, Schindler & Sandberg, LLP, and Sherryll Martens Dunaj and Neal
    L. Sandberg, for appellee.
    Before SALTER, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    Benjamin Atkin, defendant below, appeals from the trial court’s order
    striking his answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint, and the resulting
    final judgment entered in favor of Murray Kane, plaintiff below.1
    We affirm that portion of the trial court’s order which concluded that the
    actions and conduct of Atkin, including his answer to the complaint and answers to
    interrogatories, “at best were inaccurate and, at worst . . . are deceptive.” We also
    affirm the trial court’s order insofar as it determined that Atkin’s conduct and
    actions justified the imposition of sanctions.
    However, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order striking Atkin’s
    pleadings, leading to entry of a final judgment against him.          We hold that
    imposition of this severest of sanctions—foreclosing any further defense of the
    action and the resulting entry of final judgment— was simply too severe under the
    circumstances presented and was not commensurate with the conduct and actions
    at bar. See, e.g., Prater v. Comprehensive Health Ctr., LLC, 
    185 So. 3d 559
    , 560
    (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
    1 Atkin also seeks to appeal the trial court’s order which determined only
    entitlement to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2016)
    but deferred a determination of the amount of those fees. We dismiss this portion
    of the appeal as one taken from a nonfinal, nonappealable order. See Tower Hill
    Prime Ins. Co. v. Torrablas, 
    176 So. 3d 374
    (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Reid v. Estate of
    Sonder, 
    63 So. 3d 7
    (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Chaiken v. Suchman, 
    694 So. 2d 115
    (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Gonzalez Eng’g, Inc. v. Miami Pump and Supply Co., Inc.,
    
    641 So. 2d 474
    (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
    2
    We therefore vacate the final judgment, reverse in part the order striking
    Atkin’s pleadings, and remand to the trial court for consideration of commensurate
    sanctions and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-1838

Citation Numbers: 246 So. 3d 574

Filed Date: 7/5/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/5/2018