In January 2026, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal issued an important—and very practical—decision in Rodriguez v. Bryant Permit Service, Case No. 3D25-0308. The case is a reminder that while trial courts must manage crowded dockets, dismissal of a lawsuit remains the most severe sanction available—and it cannot be imposed lightly, especially when the client did nothing wrong.

For litigants, small business owners, and lawyers alike, the opinion reinforces a core principle of Florida law: clients should not lose their case because of a single, non-willful procedural misstep by counsel.

The Backdrop: A Straightforward Contract Dispute That Went Off the Rails

Norka Rodriguez hired Bryant Permit Service to handle permitting work for renovations to her bathroom and pool. According to the complaint, the work was not performed as agreed. Rodriguez sued for breach of contract and, alternatively, for violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Bryant failed to respond. Defaults were entered. The corporate defendant was ordered to obtain counsel and did not do so. In other words, Rodriguez was not dragging her feet—she was prosecuting a case against a defendant that repeatedly failed to comply with basic procedural requirements.

Eventually, however, the trial court entered an order giving Rodriguez thirty days to move for a default final judgment, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal. Rodriguez’s lawyer missed that deadline. The case was dismissed “without prejudice.”

In reality, it was game over. The statute of limitations had run. The dismissal effectively operated with prejudice, permanently ending Rodriguez’s claims.

The Appellate Court’s Message: Dismissal Is Not a Default Setting

The Third District reversed.

The court began with a point Florida appellate courts have emphasized for decades: dismissal is the harshest sanction available and must be reserved for extreme circumstances—typically involving willful, deliberate, or contumacious conduct.

That finding was missing here.

There was a single failure to comply with a court order. Counsel explained it as mistake or excusable neglect, believing the issue would be addressed at an upcoming calendar call. The trial court made no finding of willfulness, and the record did not support one.

Under Florida law, that alone is fatal to a dismissal order.

Why Willfulness Matters

Florida courts do not require “magic words,” but they do require substance. Before dismissing a case—especially one that effectively ends the client’s rights—the court must determine that the noncompliance was more than negligence or confusion.

Here, there was:

• No pattern of misconduct
• No prior sanctions
• No evidence the client was involved
• No prejudice to the opposing party
• No showing of harm to judicial administration

Under Kozel v. Ostendorf, those factors matter. And when they are absent, dismissal is an abuse of discretion.

Punishing the Client for Counsel’s Error Is Disfavored

One of the most important aspects of Rodriguez is the court’s explicit recognition that dismissal here punished the wrong person.

Rodriguez herself did nothing wrong. She hired a permit service. She sued when the work was not performed. She obtained defaults. And then—because of a procedural misstep by her lawyer—she lost her case forever.

Florida appellate courts have repeatedly rejected that outcome. As the Third District emphasized, courts must weigh the severity of counsel’s error against the devastating consequence to the client. When dismissal sounds the “death knell” of the case, caution is mandatory.

Why This Case Matters Beyond Small Claims and Defaults

Although Rodriguez arose from a county-court dispute, its implications are broad.

Missed deadlines, misunderstood procedural distinctions (like the difference between a default and a default final judgment), and docket-management pressures exist in every court—from small claims to complex commercial litigation.

This decision reinforces that:

• Trial courts must exercise restraint when imposing terminating sanctions
• Appellate courts will intervene when dismissal becomes punitive rather than corrective
• Clients retain protection even when counsel makes a single, non-willful mistake

The Practical Takeaway

Litigation is not supposed to be a trapdoor. Florida law recognizes that cases should be decided on their merits whenever possible, not lost because of a single procedural error that causes no prejudice.

Rodriguez v. Bryant Permit Service is a reminder that experience matters—not just in knowing the rules, but in knowing how courts apply them when real consequences are on the line.

Dismissal is powerful medicine. And like all powerful medicine, it must be administered carefully.

When it isn’t, Florida’s appellate courts remain willing to step in.