AKRAM ANGEL RADWAN, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred by dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute without considering the plaintiff's timely filed response showing good cause.
[1] A complaint may be dismissed for failure to prosecute if there has been no record activity for over one year.
[2] A party opposing a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute may avoid dismissal by showing good cause in writing at least five days before the hearing.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed suit for insurance benefits and experienced a period of no record activity. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.420(E) (Dismissal For Lack Of Prosecution) cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Akram Angel Radwan appeals the order dismissing her complaint for failure to prosecute. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In July 1999 Radwan filed suit against Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company and claimed uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance benefits. After various pleadings and discovery disputes, there was no record activity for over one year. Nationwide then filed its motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). Ten days prior to a scheduled hearing on the motion to dismiss, Radwan filed a verified response to the motion, outlining several grounds that she contended established good cause for the delay in prosecution.
At the hearing on the motion, the trial court indicated that the file did not reflect any record activity for a period in excess of one year prior to the filing of the motion to dismiss. In the order of dismissal, the trial court specifically noted that it was dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute because Radwan had not filed a written showing of good cause at least five days before the hearing. It is evident that the trial court was not aware that Radwan had filed with the clerk of the court a verified response to the motion to dismiss ten days prior to the hearing.
Rule 1.420(e) provides that a party opposing a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute may avoid dismissal if it “shows good cause in writing at least 5 days before the hearing on the motion why the action should remain pending.” Because Radwan timely responded to the motion as contemplated by the rule, the trial court was required to make a determination of whether she had established good cause prior to dismissing her complaint. See Frohman v. Bar-Or, 660 So. 2d 633, 636-37 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to determine whether Radwan’s response established good cause sufficient to preclude dismissal of the complaint.
Reversed and remanded.
SALCINES and KELLY, JJ., Concur.