Orlando
Marshall Dennehey's Orlando office is situated in the heart of downtown, overlooking Lake Eola. The Orlando office is mere blocks from state and federal courthouses and ideally positioned to service clients throughout central and northeast Florida. Its reach includes Jacksonville, Ocala, Gainesville, Daytona, the Space Coast, I-4 corridor and all points between. The Orlando office provides experienced legal representation in venues including the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and the state Circuit Courts of Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Volusia, Flagler, St. Johns, Duval, Nassau, Clay, Putnam, Marion, Alachua, Lake, Polk, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach and Okeechobee Counties.
The Orlando office practices aggressive, well-prepared defense litigation by lawyers who are accessible and who practice and pride themselves on client relations. Its breadth of experience includes the successful defense of wrongful death, catastrophic injury, product liability, motor vehicle liability, alcohol liability, defamation and a wide range of premises liability cases. These include slip and fall, malicious prosecution, false arrest, negligent security, construction defect and elevator/escalator incidents. In addition, the office has distinguished itself in the defense of theme parks and issues relating to wild animals, amusement rides and crowd control.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Striking Complaint as Sanction for Violating Discovery Order
June 11, 2026
All Dry USA v. Savell, 2026 WL 816093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026) The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying All Dry USA’s complaint as a sanction for violating a discovery order. The appellate court found that All Dry USA’s failure to comply with the trial court’s case management order did not give the trial court the authority to strike All Dry USA’s pleadings. All Dry USA provided water mitigation, mold remediation, and a restorative tarp at the property owned by the Savells. The property had been damaged by Hurricane Sally. All Dry USA provided invoices for the three services it performed in the amount of $90,130.61. The Savells refused to pay the invoices, stating that while they had retained All Dry USA, there was no agreement reached regarding the cost of the services. All Dry USA proceeded to file a lawsuit against the Savells, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Savells answered the lawsuit and served discovery upon All Dry USA. All Dry USA failed to respond to the discovery requests and the Savells moved for an order compelling discovery. The trial court issued an order compelling All Dry USA to respond to Savells discovery requests and comply with all outstanding discovery deadlines per the case management order. On the day its responses were due, All Dry USA filed a motion to extend the deadline to comply with the court’s order. Before the motion was ruled upon, the Savells filed a motion to have All Dry USA’s complaint stricken for violating the trial court’s order compelling All Dry USA’s responses. The trial court granted the motion to strike, and then granted the Savell’s request for entry of default final judgment, based upon there no longer being an operative complaint. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that an order striking pleadings is justified if it is found that a party has violated numerous discovery orders, or has shown a “deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority.” Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983). The appellate court stated that a trial court’s authority to strike pleadings is not unbridled and that the situation before the court did not justify the striking of All Dry USA’s pleadings. In reaching its decision, the First District focused on the fact that the trial court only addressed the potential prejudice to Savell by All Dry USA failing to respond to discovery and seeking an extension of the deadline. The appellate court stated that prejudice is not the only factor to be considered and that the trial court needed to address if All Dry USA’s behavior in failing to comply with the discovery order was willful and deliberate. The First District also stated that nothing in rule 1.200 or 1.380 grants a trial court the authority to strike a pleading because certain case management deadlines are not met. The appellate court held that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow trial courts to bring the parties in, order them to comply with the case management discovery deadlines, and then strike pleadings if the subsequent discovery orders are disobeyed. This ruling shows the importance of understanding the authority that is binding on the trial court a party is appearing in front of. The First District’s view on a trial court’s ability to strike pleadings is in contrast with other appellate court’s throughout Florida.
Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
Court Dismisses Appeal Due to Missing Notice of Rejection Under Rule 1.820(h)
June 11, 2026
Yasmani Sanchez v. People’s Trust Insurance Company The court referred this breach of contract action to non-binding arbitration, which according to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h), requires that a notice of rejection and a motion for trial de novo be filed within 20 days of service of the arbitrator’s decision. In this case, the arbitrator filed her order with the trial court, and Sanchez filed a motion for trial de novo instead of the required notice of rejection of the arbitration and request for trial per Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h). Since the notice of rejection was not filed properly, People’s Trust filed a motion for entry of order on the arbitration decision with the court. After People’s Trust’s motion was filed, Sanchez filed an amended motion for trial de novo and notice of rejection of non-binding arbitration decision with the court, but it was past the 20-day period under rule 1.820(h). As such, the trial court entered an order granting People’s Trust’s motion and entered final judgment in the case. Sanchez appealed the ruling, stating they substantially complied with rule 1.820(h), but that appeal was rejected because the rule requires that Sanchez include a notice of rejection along with her motion for trial de novo as specifically required by the rule, citing that it is an essential part of the rule.
Results
Sex Trafficking and Abuse Claims Against Hotel Successfully Dismissed
We were successful in having all claims against our client’s hotel dismissed. This case involved deeply distressing allegations of sex trafficking and abuse by the plaintiff’s mother, occurring when the plaintiff was a minor. The claims against our client’s hotel were brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and Florida law. While the court was unequivocal in acknowledging the tragic and serious nature of the plaintiff’s allegations against her abusers, it ultimately found that the legal claims against our client were not supported by sufficient factual allegations to state a cause of action under either federal or state law. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint without prejudice. However, upon review of the amended complaint, the court agreed with our renewed motion to dismiss and concluded that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that our hotel knowingly participated in a trafficking venture or maintained a continuous business relationship with the traffickers. The amended complaint alleged only a single instance of trafficking at our client’s hotel and asserted that the conduct was so blatant that hotel staff should have recognized it. The court found this insufficient to support a claim under the TVPRA. Additionally, the court found that the allegations did not meet the high legal threshold required to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Florida law.
Summary Judgment Secured in a Slip-and-Fall Premises Liability Case
We were granted final summary judgment in a slip-and-fall premises liability case. The plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on an unidentified wet substance while waiting in line at the defendant’s convenience store. The plaintiff admitted she did not see the substance prior to her fall and did not know what it was, where it came from or how long it had been there. She testified that the wetness appeared to have been tracked in by other customers, noting their shoes were wet. We moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not meet her burden under § 768.0755, Fla. Stat., to prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged condition. Surveillance footage showed multiple customers walking through the area without issue, and no visible hazard appeared on video. The court agreed and granted final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the case with prejudice.
