Nguyen v. Williams, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D370 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 27, 2026):

The trial court entered a uniform order setting trial and a pretrial conference in this negligence case arising from an automobile accident. The order expressly required that at least one trial counsel per party be physically present at the pretrial conference, warning that failure to appear could result in sanctions and/or dismissal. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, a solo practitioner, did not appear because she was sick. She had emailed defense counsel (who would not agree to move the hearing) and the trial court two days before the hearing. She then had her husband, who is also a lawyer in another firm, reach out to defense counsel and the court the day before the hearing, to advise that she was even sicker with flu-like symptoms that rendered her “mentally and physically” incapacitated.

The trial court dismissed the case (it was not clear if the trial court knew about the emails to it, or just believed counsel did not show up, and defense counsel never said a word).

The plaintiffs sought rehearing of the dismissal and sought clarification as to whether the dismissal was “with or without” prejudice.

The thrust of the motion for reconsideration was that the trial court dismissed based on mistaken factual assumptions about whether notice had been given and whether anyone had tried to reschedule it.

Painfully, and a bit surprisingly, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal.

It read the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration to have been asking the trial court to “clarify” whether the dismissal was with prejudice because the statute of limitations had run, and if so, asked whether an analysis under the Kozel factors was required.

The Second District treated the motion as an impermissible request for an advisory opinion and held that the trial court did not err by denying it.

While the court admonished lawyers to be more professional and to respect each other’s illnesses, it still affirmed dismissing the case. It criticized defense counsel’s failure to advise or remind the trial court about the illness and the rescheduling request, basically calling out the conduct as an affront to civility and professionalism, and warned that courts do not look favorably on “gotcha” litigation tactics.

The result (affirmance of the dismissal) still feels a bit odd, especially after the appellate court noted that it was unsure about how much the trial court knew before dismissal, had the discretion to reconsider its ruling…and didn’t under these circumstances.