The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of *GS Holistic, LLC v. Zaidal Blue Sky Investments Corp* after the plaintiff's attorney failed to attend a mandatory final pretrial conference, highlighting the serious consequences attorneys and their clients face when counsel fails to comply with basic court procedural requirements.
In a brief per curiam opinion issued January 23, 2026, the three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Newsom, Lagoa, and Kidd unanimously upheld the Middle District of Florida's decision to dismiss GS Holistic's case without prejudice due to attorney misconduct.
The case stems from litigation that began in 2022 when GS Holistic filed suit against Zaidal Blue Sky Investments Corp, which operates under the name "I Lava You," along with individual defendants Wisam Mhessin and Fadi Shahla. The nature of the underlying dispute was not detailed in the appeals court opinion.
The procedural failures that led to dismissal began with a standard scheduling order issued by the district court on June 7, 2023. The order set the final pretrial conference for October 16, 2024, and included an explicit warning about the consequences of non-attendance. In bolded and underlined typeface, the court warned that "Failure by counsel . . . to appear at the Final Pretrial Conference . . . will subject the party or attorney to appropriate sanctions under the rules, and may cause dismissal or striking of all pleadings of the failing party or person."
Three months after the district court issued this scheduling order, David Perry of the Ticktin Law Group took over as GS Holistic's lead counsel, assuming responsibility for the case and its procedural requirements. Despite having more than a year to prepare for the October 2024 conference date, Perry failed to appear at the scheduled proceeding.
The district court's scheduling order represented standard practice in federal litigation, where final pretrial conferences serve as crucial preparation sessions before trial. These conferences allow courts to resolve outstanding procedural issues, discuss potential settlement, and ensure cases are ready for trial. The explicit warning about potential dismissal underscores how seriously federal courts take attorney attendance at these mandatory proceedings.
When neither Perry nor any other representative from the Ticktin Law Group appeared at the October 16, 2024 final pretrial conference, the district court followed through on its earlier warning. The court dismissed GS Holistic's case without prejudice, meaning the company could potentially refile the lawsuit, though it would need to start the litigation process over from the beginning.
GS Holistic appealed the dismissal to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the district court's sanction was inappropriate or excessive. However, the appeals court found no error in the district court's handling of the matter. The Eleventh Circuit's affirmance sends a clear message about the importance of attorney compliance with court orders and the consequences for failing to meet basic professional obligations.
The "without prejudice" nature of the dismissal provides some relief for GS Holistic, as it preserves the company's right to refile the lawsuit if it chooses to do so and can comply with applicable statutes of limitations. However, dismissal still represents a significant setback, requiring the company to restart expensive litigation and potentially face additional procedural hurdles.
This case illustrates the broader principle that federal courts expect strict compliance with procedural requirements from attorneys practicing before them. Courts rely on attorney professionalism and adherence to scheduling orders to manage their dockets efficiently and ensure fair proceedings for all parties.
The opinion, marked "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," suggests the Eleventh Circuit viewed this as a straightforward application of established precedent rather than a case requiring extensive legal analysis. Per curiam opinions, issued by the court as a whole rather than attributed to a specific judge, are typically used for cases where the legal principles are well-settled.
For attorneys practicing in federal court, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining proper calendar systems and ensuring attendance at all mandatory court proceedings. The consequences of missing scheduled conferences can extend far beyond simple embarrassment, potentially resulting in case dismissal and malpractice exposure.
The ruling also highlights the discretion federal district courts possess in managing their dockets and sanctioning attorney misconduct. While dismissal represents a severe sanction, the Eleventh Circuit's affirmance indicates that such measures are appropriate when attorneys fail to meet clearly articulated expectations and warnings.
Moving forward, GS Holistic must decide whether to pursue refiling its lawsuit or seek alternative resolution of its dispute with Zaidal Blue Sky Investments Corp and the individual defendants. The company may also need to evaluate its relationship with current counsel and consider whether the attorney's failure to appear warrants additional legal action for potential malpractice.