Sanderson v. Karch, 257 So. 3d 1091 (2018)

Nov. 21, 2018 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · No. 4D18-1695
257 So. 3d 1091
Erik SANDERSON, Individually; Technomarine Construction, Inc., a Florida Corporation; and Technomarine Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Appellants, v. Christopher KARCH, Appellee.

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

No. 4D18-1695

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 21, 2018]

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.