All Dry USA v. Savell, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D573 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 25, 2026):

This case arises from a hurricane remediation bill, where the defendant homeowners refused to pay the plaintiff contractor, disputing the invoice after the work was done. The contractor sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The defendants served a request for production that the plaintiff did not timely respond to. The trial court granted a motion to compel, and on the day responses were due the plaintiff filed a motion to extend the deadline. Before the court could rule on that request, the defendants moved to strike the complaint as a sanction for the untimeliness.  The trial court then struck the plaintiff’s complaint, entered default, and entered judgment for the defendants.

The appellate court reversed. It reminded litigants that striking pleadings is an extraordinary remedy under Rule 1.380(b)(2) and is one that is reserved for repeated violations or a deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority. An order awarding such a sanction must include specific findings of willful refusal or deliberate noncompliance.

Here, while the trial court’s order focused on “prejudice” and case management deadlines, it did not make the necessary willfulness/contumaciousness finding.  A litigant’s slow compliance (and a request for more time) does not constitute stonewalling.  The court reversed the order striking the complaint, vacated the default judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.