AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DAIN A. SCHNEEMILCH, ET AL., APPELLEES; AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT, V. WILLIAM J. SABLESAK, ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dispositive Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge
We reverse the orders of dismissal entered in these companion eases due to appellant’s failure to have record activity for a period of one year where the respective records reflect that there were several pending dispositive motions1 which had all been previously argued and the trial court had either taken the matters under advisement or effectively stayed entry of its ruling thereon at appel-lees’ request to permit additional discovery.2 Appellant’s failure to proceed in these cases in reliance upon anticipated rulings by the court on these motions was sufficient demonstration of good cause, we think, to preclude the dismissal of these actions. See American Eastern Corp. v. Henry Blanton, Inc., 382 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
Reversed.
. Namely, motions for summary judgment, for judgment on the pleadings, and to dismiss.
. Appellant's sworn testimony that such discovery was ultimately completed by appellees was uncontradicted below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lukowsky v. Hauser & Metsch, P.A., 677 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ed. Appellant’s failure to proceed “in reb-anee upon anticipated rulings by the court on these motions was sufficient demonstration of good cause, we think, to preclude the dismissal of [this action].” Air Line Pilots [*1384] Ass’n v. Schneemilch, 674 So. 2d 782, 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We emphasize that our holdings in this case and in Air Line Pilots establish a bright-line rule: whenever a dispositive motion is pending before the court, and the parties are awaiting the court’s ruling on that motion, th…
-
Sewell Masonry Co. v. DCC Constr., Inc., 862 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…, a dispositive motion for summary judgment was pending before the court and the parties were awaiting the court’s ruling. In reversing an order of dismissal, the Third District relied on its earlier decision in Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Schneemilch, 674 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), wherein the pending motions had been argued and the trial court’s ruling was pending. Here the motions were not set for a hearing, let alone argued to the court. The parties were not awaiting a court ruling on the motions. Sewel…
-
Abreu v. Lloyd's, 877 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…e theft of his truck. As to the cross-appeal, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Lloyd’s’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. See Lukowsky v. Hauser & Metsch, P.A., 677 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Schneemilch, 674 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse the Final Judgment in favor of Lloyd’s and remand this matter to the trial court to determine damages and for entry of a judgment in favor of Abreu. We affirm the denial of Lloyd’s’ motion to dismiss for…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. E. Corp. v. Henry Blanton, Inc., 382 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)