Publix
TALLAHASSEE – The Florida Supreme Court has wiped out a slip-and-fall lawsuit against Publix after the plaintiff was caught lying under oath.
In its July 9 opinion, the court held that a trial court’s decision to dismiss a complaint as a sanction for a party’s fraud on the court is reviewable under the traditional abuse of discretion standard rather than the “more stringent” or “narrowed” abuse of discretion applied by the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
Jonida Goga filed a personal injury suit against Publix alleging a fall at a Publix store in Pompano Beach on spilled dish soap caused her severe and lasting physical limitations. But a private investigator hired by Publix recorded Goga performing many of the activities she repeatedly claimed under oath that she could no longer do.
Security footage from the store also showed Goga shopping after the fall, according to the ruling.
“She alleged that she sustained injuries to her neck, back, pelvis and hip area and claimed to have received seven months of medical treatment for her spine,” the opinion states. “She sought damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering and lost wages.
“More than two years after the incident, Goga answered interrogatories from Publix addressing the extent of her injuries. According to her answers, she was unable to ‘lift anything heavy’ or ‘do [physical] activities’ such as playing in the pool. Nor could she ‘walk or stand for long periods’ or ‘go places with both [of her] children alone.’ In sum, she claimed that she would never be able to do many of the activities she did before the slip and fall.”
Publix also deposed Goga.
“When asked if there were activities she could no longer do, she replied that there were ‘a lot of cant’s,’” the opinion states. “Among other things, she insisted that she could not lift her young children and had not done so since her slip and fall. She also testified she could neither bend at the waist nor run.
“After her deposition, Goga responded to a supplemental interrogatory from Publix, in which she again claimed to have a severely limited range of motion as well as difficulty walking.”
But Publix hired a private investigator.
“Unbeknownst to Goga, Publix hired a private investigator to surveil Goga while discovery was ongoing,” the opinion states. “The investigator videoed Goga doing many, if not all, of the things she allegedly was unable to do. These included picking up and carrying her children, bending at the waist as she loaded and unloaded her vehicle, walking with groceries in hand and even playing in the pool – all without restriction or apparent discomfort.
“Given the discrepancy between these video recordings and Goga’s interrogatory answers and deposition testimony, Publix moved to dismiss her complaint for fraud on the court.”
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Goga had intentionally and repeatedly lied about her physical limitations, concluding that her fraud “comprehensively infect[ed] the integrity” of the action, and dismissed her lawsuit with prejudice.
On appeal, the Fourth District did not find error with the trial court’s determination that Goga committed fraud on the court, but nonetheless reversed dismissal and created a new, reduced sanction that Goga would be barred from pursuing pain and suffering damages and lost wages but was free to pursue medical damages that could be proved by objective evidence. In so holding, the Fourth District applied a “more stringent” or “narrowed” abuse of discretion standard to the trial court’s determination that dismissal of the entire lawsuit was an appropriate sanction for Goga’s fraudulent conduct.
This conflicted with the Third District’s 2017 decision in Willie-Koonce v. Mia. Sunshine Transfer & Tours Corp., which applied a “narrowed” abuse of discretion to the trial court’s factual findings, and the First District’s 2024 decision in Pro Choice Remediation, Inc. v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., which applied traditional, bifurcated standards of review rather than any special fraud-specific standard.
The Florida Justice Reform Institute submitted an amicus brief in support of Publix, arguing the determination of an appropriate remedy for a litigant’s abuse of the judicial system is properly within the trial court’s broad discretion and highlighting the case law supporting the trial court’s dismissal of Goga’s lawsuit due to her egregious conduct.
Large
FJRI President William Large praised the ruling.
“The Florida Supreme Court ruled that if there is competent substantial evidence of fraud in a case, the trial court has the discretion to dismiss the case,” Large told The Florida Record. “The court concluded that dismissal of the entire complaint was reasonable given the abundance and gravity of plaintiff’s lies. This opinion will now be the standard for trial judges to deal with fraud in their courtrooms.
“It is a new day in Florida: fraud and lies will now lead to the swift dismissal of claims.”
The Supreme Court held that the traditional abuse of discretion standard applies to a trial court’s decision on which sanction to impose on a litigant who commits fraud on the court, not a “more stringent” or “narrowed” abuse of discretion standard.
The court approved of the First District’s approach in Pro Choice, holding that a trial court’s factual findings on fraud should be reviewed for competent and substantial evidence, its legal conclusion on whether the facts amount to fraud on the court should be reviewed de novo and its choice of sanction should be reviewed for abuse of discretion.
The court rejected the “more stringent” or “narrowed” abuse of discretion standard used by the Third and Fourth Districts because it is based on flawed justifications and resulted in unpredictable and inconsistent application by appellate courts.
“For the reasons set out above, we quash the Fourth District’s decision in Goga and remand for reinstatement of the trial court’s order dismissing Goga’s entire complaint with prejudice,” the opinion stated.
FJRI was represented by Large and by Tiffany Roddenberry and Kathryn Isted of Holland & Knight.
Florida Supreme Court case number SC2024-0669
