NOLAN NATHANIEL EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, 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.
Edwards, a pro se litigant, sued the City of St. Petersburg for public records in 2003. The circuit court dismissed the action for lack of prosecution based on a notice of lack of prosecution, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Edwards engaged in sufficient record activity within the required sixty-day period to avoid dismissal.
The dismissal was improper because Edwards engaged in record activity within the sixty-day cure period required by amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). Under the bright-line test, there is either activity on the face of the record or there is not, and a cursory review revealed activity during the applicable time period.
[1] Any filing appearing on the face of the record constitutes "record activity" sufficient to avoid dismissal for lack of prosecution under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1…
[2] The bright-line rule established in Wilson v. …
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an action may not be dismissed for lack of prosecution without prior notice to the claimant and adequate opportunity for the claimant to re-commence prosecution of the action to avert dismissal.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for dismissal for lack of prosecution under amended rule 1.420(e)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwards filed suit against the City of St. Petersburg in December 2003 seeking copies of public records from the police department. The City filed a m…
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 Record Activity cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Chief Judge.
The circuit court erred when it dismissed Nolan Edwards’ action against the City of St. Petersburg for lack of prosecution. Accordingly, we reverse.
Acting pro se, Edwards filed suit against the City in December 2003, seeking copies of certain public records allegedly created by the St. Petersburg Police Department. In 2004, the City filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike interrogatories. According to our limited record, these motions have never been set for hearing or ruled upon. In 2005, Edwards filed a pro se motion for trial, which included a request that he be transported from prison to attend. This latter request was denied in an order that did not rule on Edwards’ motion for trial.
On July 10, 2006, the clerk of the circuit court mailed to the parties a “NOTICE OF LACK OF PROSECUTION.” The notice stated that the face of the record revealed no activity for the preceding ten months. Citing Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e), the notice stated that the case could be dismissed if no record activity occurred within sixty days and if no stay was issued, unless good cause was shown. On August 23, 2006, Edwards filed a motion for hearing and for witness attendance. Over a month later, the City filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. The circuit court granted the City’s motion and dismissed the action with prejudice, finding from a review of the file “that from 7/12/05-8/23/06 Plaintiff did not file record activity.”
Dismissals for failure to prosecute are governed by rule 1.420(e), which was amended in 2005. In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (Two Year Cycle), 917 So. 2d 176, 176-77 (Fla.2005) (setting January 1, 2006, as effective date for amendments). The parties agree that the amended rule applies to this case. Under the new provisions of rule 1.420(e), a notice of lack of prosecution may be sent when there has been no record activity— by filing of pleadings, order of court, or otherwise — for a period of ten months. Such a notice was sent in this case.
The amended rule then provides a sixty-day period in which a party must act in order to avoid a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(e). “[A]n action may not be dismissed for lack of prosecution without prior notice to the claimant and adequate opportunity for the claimant to re-eommence prosecution of the action to avert dismissal.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(e) committee notes (2005 amend.). See In re Amendments, 917 So. 2d at 176 (“Following proper service of the notice, the party has sixty days to conduct record activity in order to avoid dismissal.”). In this case, Edwards acted within the sixty-day period following the notice by filing a motion on the forty-fourth day.
As the supreme court has stated, whether a case is subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute is determined by a bright-line test. “[Tjhere is either activity on the face of the record or there is not.” Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So. 2d 363, 368 (Fla.2005) (quoting Metro. Dade County v. Hall, 784 So. 2d 1087, 1090 (Fla.2001)) (receding from precedent that attempted to characterize the quality of record activity as passive or active and reverting to plain meaning of rule 1.420(e) to promote resolution of cases on the merits and to decrease litigation over rule’s meaning). In this case, even a cursory review of the record reveals that there was record activity during the applicable time period. Accordingly, we reverse.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
ALTENBERND and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 2011)…Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in Pagan v. Facilicorp, Inc., 989 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and Edwards v. City of St. Petersburg, 961 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and the Third District Court of Appeal in Padron v. Alonso, 970 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The conflict issue in this case involves the proper interpretation of Florid…1 / 3
-
Weston TC LLLP v. CNDP Mktg. Inc., 66 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ay the proceedings); Padron v. Alonso, 970 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“at least one filing within sixty days of the notice of intent to dismiss for lack of prosecution,” but not specifying what kind of filing); Edwards v. City of St. Petersburg, 961 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“a motion for hearing and for witness attendance”). This court followed Edwards in Lingo Construction v. Pritts Inc., 990 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); we held that a motion to set a date for arbitration, filed on the fifty-ni…
-
Padron v. Alina T. Alonso, 970 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…f prosecution without prior notice to the claimant and adequate opportunity for the claimant to recommence prosecution of the action to avert dismissal.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(e), committee notes (2005 amend.); see Edwards v. City of St. Petersburg, 961 So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (confirming that the amended rule provides a sixty-day period in which a party may act to avoid a dismissal for failure to prosecute). In Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So. 2d 363 (Fla.2005), the Florida Supreme Court recognized a…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gloriann Wilson v. Eva J. Salamon, M.D., 923 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2005)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Hall, 784 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2001)
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (two Year Cycle), 917 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2005)