Seaway Biltmore, Inc. v. Abuchaibe
In an employment retaliation/breach-of-settlement case, a special magistrate found the employer intentionally destroyed IT tickets and emails crucial to the plaintiff's prima facie case and recommended a jury instruction requiring the jury to presume the lost information was unfavorable to defendants, plus payment of magistrate costs and half the plaintiff's fees for the four-day hearings. The trial court adopted the report, and the Third DCA dismissed the defendants' certiorari petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding no irreparable harm was shown.
Key facts
- Seaway Biltmore, an employer, was sued by a former employee for employment retaliation and breach of a settlement agreement containing an anti-retaliation clause.
- A special magistrate found that Seaway Biltmore intentionally destroyed IT tickets and emails relevant to the employee's claims and recommended a jury instruction presuming the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to the employer, plus an award of magistrate costs and half of the employee's attorney's fees for four days of hearings.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion is a useful jurisdictional shield for parties resisting interlocutory review of spoliation sanctions: a mandatory adverse-presumption jury instruction and a partial fee/cost sanction are not irreparable… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
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.