Rhoades v. Rodriguez
In an auto negligence case, the trial court struck the defendant's pleadings as a sanction for defense counsel's intentionally misleading statements at the first trial and his misuse of Rule 1.351 non-party subpoena procedures, then granted additur and a new trial after the second trial. The Fifth DCA affirmed the new-trial order and the finding that sanctions were warranted but held that striking the pleadings was an abuse of discretion under Kozel and Ham where the client was uninvolved (counsel was retained by his insurer) and the opposing party suffered no prejudice, and where both attorneys contributed to the mistrial. On remand, the trial court may impose monetary sanctions personally on counsel, including fees for the sanctions hearing and the physician's fees, and the court referred the opinion to The Florida Bar.
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.