‘LYING PLAINTIFF’ DISMISSALS GET NEW FLORIDA HIGH COURT TEST

The Florida defense bar will find it easier to dismiss cases brought by plaintiffs lying about claims under an appellate review test backed by the state high court Thursday.

Plaintiffs who commit “fraud on the court” can have their entire claims dismissed by trial courts, and judges need not separate individual parts of a case to preserve claims that might not be impacted by the lies, the Florida Supreme Court said in its decision.

When reviewing this kind of dismissal “the appellate court should ask whether the individual’s deceit was so egregious and pervasive that it amounted to an intentional scheme to undermine the impartial adjudication of the case,” Justice Justice Renatha Francis wrote for the majority. Applying “a ‘more stringent’ or ‘narrowed’ abuse of discretion standard in the fraud on the court context is inconsistent with established principles of appellate review.”

The ruling, stemming from a basic slip-and-fall dispute, strikes a blow to the plaintiffs bar by removing difficult appellate review when defense counsel win total dismissal of claims when litigants or their lawyers lied about some facts in their case. Plaintiff groups piled in as amici urging the court to narrow these rules because defendants don’t face a similar “death sentence” in litigation, potentially tipping the scales for businesses against those suing them.

The case developed out of a lawsuit brought by a woman who slipped in a Publix supermarket. Though she lied about her recovery from her fall injuries, the state appeals court said only part of her case should be dismissed because her other damages—that she was injured and had to undergo surgery—weren’t in dispute.

The majority rejected stricter review, saying thatplaintiff falsehoods that go to the heart of the case can justify dismissal and that discretion should be reviewed like other lower court decisions.

In his dissent, Justice Jorge Labarga said that this decision didn’t strike the right balance between trial judge’s powers and the constitutional right of plaintiffs to access the courts.

“Unfortunately, by excising the more stringent abuse of discretion standard, the majority in effect enlarges the scope of the discretion of trial courts,” he said. “Consequently, trial courts are now empowered to subordinate the policy of favoring adjudication on the merits—an aspiration enshrined in the Florida Constitution—to competing interests aimed at safeguarding judicial integrity.”

Weiss Serota represents Publix. Wasson & Associates represents the plaintiff.

The case is Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Goga, Fla., No. SC2024-0669, 7/9/26.