where the statute of limitations has run, the trial court should normally exercise discretion in favor of giving the plaintiff additional time to perfect service. Chaffin v. Jacobson, 793 So.2d 102, 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“[T]he purpose of Rule 1.070(j) is to speed the progress of cases on the civil docket, but not to give defendants a ‘free’ dismissal with prejudice.”) (quoting Skrbic v. QCRC Assocs. Corp., 761 So.2d 349, 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Cope, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). Where the statute of limitations has run, “[discretion in these circumstances must be exercised with the understanding that Florida has a longstanding policy in favor of resolving civil disputes on the merits.” Id. Brown v. Ameri Star, Inc., 884 So.2d 1065, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>) (citing Chaffin v. Jacobson, 793 So.2d 102,
holding that monetary sanction was not supportable as a compensatory civil contempt sanction because there was no proof of the amount of loss recognizing that courts have discretion to exclude evidence as a sanction for violation of a discovery order holding that a postjudgment contempt sanction for refusal to obey orders whether it is characterized as a civil or a criminal sanction is immediately appealable as a final order under  1291 recognizing rule recognizing that the intent that of rule 1070j is to serve as a case management tool and not as a severe sanction 