GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREA P. LANMAN, ALBERT T. TYLER, JR., ISUZU MOTORS OF AMERICA, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND TOM ENDICOTT BUICK, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
Reversed. As “good cause” for why plaintiffs/appellees failed to serve a defendant within the 120-day rule, see Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(f), appellees stated that pri-or counsel was attempting settlement with another codefendant. That does not constitute “good cause” for failing to serve a code-fendant. Cf. Hernandez v. Page, 580 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Further, appellees’ counsel’s subsequent difficulties long after the time limit for serving appellant'passed also cannot constitute “good cause” to show why service was not made timely. The failure of appellees’ prior counsel to serve appellant within 120 days requires dismissal. See Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1992).
GLICKSTEIN, ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pappalardo v. Buck, 659 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…anam Sys., Inc. v. Lake Buchanan Dev. Corp., 375 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1980); Vic Tanny of Florida, Inc. v. Fred McGilvray, Inc., 348 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In Pappalardo Construction Co. v. Buck, 630 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1994), where respondent first attempted to hold the contractor and the surety personally liable for attorney’s fees, this court recognized that: [*424] Although the trial court has authority, pursuan…
Authorities Cited
- Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1992)
- Hernandez v. Page, 580 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)