You need to speak up!

THE WEEK IN TORTS

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 32

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF AUGUST 14, 2026

NO REVERSAL OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE FOR TRIAL COURT’S LACK OF KOZEL FINDINGS WHEN PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PRESERVE — 1.530 REQUIRES A MOTION FOR REHEARING CHALLENGING THE ABSENCE OF REQUIRED FINDINGS

Capellan v. University of Miami, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1618 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 5, 2026):

The plaintiff appealed from a final order dismissing her complaint against the University of Miami and her former supervisor with prejudice. The trial court based the dismissal on the plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint by the court-ordered deadline—which it found reflected repeated, willful, and deliberate disregard of its orders—and on the untimely amended complaint’s continued failure to state a claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiff argued on appeal that the trial court failed to make express factor-by-factor findings under Kozel, before dismissing her case as a sanction.

The Third District never addressed the merits of the plaintiff’s case, concluding that the plaintiff failed to preserve her arguments, by (a) not providing a transcript of the relevant hearing, (b) not objecting in the trial court, and (c) by not moving for rehearing.

The court emphasized that rule 1.530(a) now expressly requires a party who challenges a final judgment’s failure to include required factual findings, to raise that issue in a motion for rehearing. This then gives the trial court an opportunity to supply the findings and avoid an unnecessary appeal and reversal.

Because the plaintiff here never gave the trial court that opportunity—and because the missing transcript independently prevented meaningful review of the factual basis for dismissal—the Third District affirmed the dismissal even without the Kozel findings.

COURT DENIES CERTIORARI DESPITE THE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION ABOUT HAVING TO PROUDUCE SUCH VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS.

United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Cousins, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1609 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 5, 2026):

United Healthcare sought certiorari review of an order requiring them to produce a voluminous number of documents in litigation with a physician. They argued that the production was unduly burdensome and that the discovery order departed from the essential requirements of law.

However, the record showed that United Healthcare itself had relied on data from the requested documents in its own market-data spreadsheet and expert analysis. It had also successfully moved to compel the physician to produce the same category of documents.

Additionally, most of United Healthcare’s affidavits and arguments concerning the burden of production were not submitted until after the hearing and entry of the discovery order (UH filed them in support of a motion for reconsideration.

The Third District denied the petition. On this record, given the trial court’s broad discretion to manage discovery and the demanding standard for certiorari relief, the court found no departure from the essential requirements of law that warranted its intervention.