Delta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl
| Decision Date | 10 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1535,RENT-A-CA,INC,1535 |
| Citation | 218 So.2d 467 |
| Parties | DELTA, a Florida corporation, and Klaus Henck, Appellants, v. Louise RIHL and William Forelli, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donald J. Lunny, of Sutton, James, Bielejeski & Lunny and George B. Pomeroy, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Brian T. Hayes, of Parkhurst & Hayes, and G. H. Martin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, Rihl.
Richard G. Gordon and Edward A. Perse, of Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood, Miami, for appellee, Forelli.
This appeal brings for review an assessment of attorney's fees and expenses against appellants under Rule 1.310(g)(1) RCP, 30 F.S.A. 1 when appellants failed to depose a witness for which notice had been given. We find that under the circumstances of this case the court abused its discretion, and we reverse the cost judgment.
In the course of preparing for trial of an automobile negligence case, appellants gave notice of intention to take the oral deposition of two eyewitnesses, Lt. Robert A. Forman and his wife, Connie Forman. The deposition was scheduled to be taken on the island of Okinawa where Lt. Forman was stationed in the Armed Forces. At the time set in the notice the deposition of Lt. Forman was taken but upon its completion counsel for appellants dismissed Connie Forman, announcing that her deposition would not be taken. Upon counsel for appellee Forelli returning to Broward County, Florida, appropriate motion was made for taxation of costs under the cited rule. Thereafter, the court entered an order taxing as costs against the appellants all travel and hotel expenses incurred by Forelli's counsel in the amount of $1,430.54, and further taxing the sum of $1,200.00 as reasonable attorney's fees for Forelli's counsel.
We have found no reported Florida case involving sanctions imposed under this rule. However, federal rule 30(g)(1) is identical and any federal cases under such rule would be pertinent and highly persuasive. 2 Apparently the only decision of a federal appellate court involving the imposition of sanctions under the federal rule is Detsch & Co. v. American Products Co., 9 Cir. 1944, 141 F.2d 662. In that case a San Francisco lawyer was given notice of a deposition of two witnesses to be taken in Los Angeles, and the lawyer appeared at the scheduled time only to be informed that the deposition of one witness would be taken but the other scheduled deposition would not be taken. The lawyer subsequently moved for taxation of costs and attorney's fees supporting it with an affidavit which expressly stated that he attended for the purpose of taking both depositions and had he known only one deposition would be taken, he would not have made the trip but instead would have arranged for a Los Angeles attorney to attend on his behalf. The award of expenses and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brewster v. Mcneil
...So.2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Dorr-Oliver, Inc. v. Linder Indus. Mach. Co., 263 So.2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Delta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, 218 So.2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); McKean v. Kloeppel Hotels, Inc., 171 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Jasson D. Radding, Inc. v. Coulter, 138 So.2d......
-
Vantage View, Inc. v. Bali East Development Corp.
...interpreting Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are pertinent and persuasive in interpreting similar Florida rules. Delta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, Fla.App. 4th, 218 So.2d 467; Crump v. Goldhouse Restaurants, Inc. Fla., 96 So.2d 215, 65 ALR 2d 637; Savage, v. Rowell Distributing Corp., Fla., ......
-
Green v. Burger King Corp.
...So.2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Dorr-Oliver, Inc. v. Linder Indus. Mach. Co., 263 So.2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Delta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, 218 So.2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); McKean v. Kloeppel Hotels, Inc., 171 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Jasson D. Radding, Inc. v. Coulter, 138 So.2d......
-
Behm v. Division of Administration, State Dept. of Transp.
...for light and help in finding the way, it being commonly understood that Florida rules are modeled thereafter. Delta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 467; Miami Transit Co. v. Ford, Fla.1963, 155 So.2d Rule 1.480(b), F.R.C.P. 7, and Federal Rule 50(b) 8 are substantially si......
-
Course and conduct of trial
...to a Florida rule, federal case law in which the rule is interpreted is pertinent and highly persuasive. Delta Rent-A-Car v. Rihl , 218 So.2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). In addition, it is generally recognized that when Florida statutes are adopted pursuant to acts of Congress, the Florida leg......