The Degrees Of Truth: When Is Dismissal With Prejudice Warranted?

An essential principle of our legal system is that people are supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yet although individuals giving testimony swear an oath to tell the truth, they often have various motives to skirt the truth, omit relevant facts, or even outright lie. Perhaps one of the most obvious or common motivations is monetary gain, and many lawyers practicing in the field of personal injury defense have had the experience of obtaining testimony from a personal injury plaintiff that was simply untrue. Occasionally the untrue statement is the result of confusion or forgetfulness, and is very minor. Yet there are other occasions where the plaintiff is lying about an important fact in the case, such as the cause of the alleged accident or the extent of his or her injuries. When faced with a dishonest plaintiff, a potential recourse available to the defendant is to file a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's case with prejudice for fraud on the court. This, however, leads to an important question - when are the lies sufficiently egregious such that dismissal with prejudice is warranted?

A recent opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal provides some insight. In Eileen Diaz v. Home Depot USA, Inc., etc., et al., the plaintiff appealed an Order from the trial court dismissing her case with prejudice for fraud on the court. The plaintiff's case was dismissed with prejudice after an evidentiary hearing where the trial court considered the live testimony of the plaintiff, her sworn answers to interrogatories, her sworn deposition testimony, and other documents.1

The trial court's evidentiary hearing revealed the following: the plaintiff's Complaint alleged that while shopping at a Home Depot store a fire extinguisher serviced and maintained by co-defendant A.B. Fire Equipment allegedly fell from a wall and struck her. The plaintiff stated in her answers to interrogatories that the incident caused injury to her cervical spine and shoulder. When deposed, the plaintiff denied any prior history of neck pain. She further admitted that she had been involved in motor vehicle accidents both prior to and following the subject incident, but testified that the accidents were minor and that she did not seek medical treatment. Despite this deposition testimony as well as vague interrogatory answers that did not fully describe prior treatment, the evidence showed that the plaintiff had: (1) visited the emergency room...