From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanderson v. Karch

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
Nov 21, 2018
257 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

Opinion

No. 4D18-1695

11-21-2018

Erik SANDERSON, Individually; Technomarine Construction, Inc., a Florida Corporation; and Technomarine Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Appellants, v. Christopher KARCH, Appellee.

Thomas J. Ali of Jupiter Legal Advocates, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellants. Alan B. Rose and Gregory S. Weiss of Mrachek, Fitzgerald, Rose, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Thomas J. Ali of Jupiter Legal Advocates, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellants.

Alan B. Rose and Gregory S. Weiss of Mrachek, Fitzgerald, Rose, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Ribaudo , 199 So.3d 407, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holding that the court's "clear errors" in failing to consider relevant factors before striking a witness and failing to consider the Kozel factors before dismissing a complaint as discovery sanctions could not be reviewed on appeal in light of sanctioned party's failure to "raise either of these issues at the hearing on the motion to dismiss or by subsequently filing a motion for rehearing or reconsideration").

Gross, Damoorgian and Ciklin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sanderson v. Karch

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
Nov 21, 2018
257 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)
Case details for

Sanderson v. Karch

Case Details

Full title:ERIK SANDERSON, individually; TECHNOMARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida…

Court:DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

Date published: Nov 21, 2018

Citations

257 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)