How many times can we say “Kozel”?!

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 49, NUMBER 31

AUGUST 2, 2024

DISMISSAL FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS REVERSED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER DID NOT ADDRESS THE KOZEL FACTORS

Freed v. CI International, LLC, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1562 (Fla. 3rd DCA July 24, 2024):

The plaintiff missed a discovery deadline contained in an agreed order on a motion for extension of time to respond to discovery. In response, the defendants moved for an involuntary dismissal under Rule 1.420(h). After conducting a non-evidentiary hearing on the matter, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s case without prejudice.

The appellate court reversed, finding that the dismissal order did not reflect that the trial court considered the six necessary factors set forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993) before dismissing the action.

A trial court must consider these factors before dismissing a case (either with or without prejudice).

The court remanded with directions that the trial judge consider the Kozel factors.

COURT DENIES PETITION SEEKING WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO PREVENT TRIAL COURT FROM CONDUCTING A TRIAL IN A STATE-BASED LAWSUIT ON THE GROUND THAT FEDERAL LAW PRE-EMPTED THE CLAIMS, FINDING THAT THE DISPUTED FACTS IN THE RECORD PRECLUDED SUCH A RULING

XPO Logistics v. Charles, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1562 (Fla. 3rd DCA July 24, 2024):

A defendant filed a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from conducting a trial in a state-based tort lawsuit filed by the plaintiff. The defendant asserted that the claims alleged in the complaint were preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

However, because the record reflected disputed material facts relevant to the operation of federal preemption, the court declined to reach the merits advanced in the petition, therefore denying it.