SIMMIE KENDRY, APPELLANT,
v.
MEADOWLARK REAL ESTATE, LLC, JEFF VIGUE, RAPID FUNDING GROUP, RANDY RUGG, AND THOMAS C. SANTORO, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal for lack of prosecution because appellant's filings within the sixty-day grace period constituted sufficient record activity to avoid dismissal, regardless of whether they advanced the litigation.
Any filing of record within the sixty-day grace period following a notice of proposed dismissal is sufficient to preclude dismissal for lack of prosecution, even if the filing does not advance the litigation.
[1] Any filing of record within the sixty-day grace period following notice of proposed dismissal under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) is sufficient to preclude dis…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“any filing of record is sufficient to preclude dismissal”
The court cited the Florida Supreme Court's express rejection of distinctions between active and passive record activity in Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co.
After nearly three years without record activity, the trial court issued a notice of proposed dismissal giving parties sixty days to show cause or cre…
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 Grace Period cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the suit for lack of prosecution *350pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). After almost three years with no record activity, the trial court issued a notice of proposed dismissal, informing the parties that the case would be dismissed within sixty days unless record activity occurred or unless a party showed good cause in writing why the action should remain pending. Appellant filed a response to the notice, a notice of trial, and a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum less than two weeks after the court issued the notice. After conducting a hearing, the trial court concluded that because the case was not at issue, Appellant’s notice of trial and writ of habeas corpus testifican-dum were nullities. Based on this finding, the trial court entered an order of dismissal. This was error.
Although a transcript of the hearing was not provided to this Court, the language in the order of dismissal suggests that the trial court declared Appellant’s filings to be a nullity only because they did not move the case forward. While it is debatable whether the filings advanced the litigation, Appellant’s filings were made within sixty-day grace period and were sufficient to avoid dismissal of the cause. Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So.3d 786, 792 (Fla.2011). The supreme court has expressly rejected the distinction between active and passive record activity, holding that “any filing of record is sufficient to preclude dismissal.” Id. (emphasis added). We, therefore, REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.
VAN NORTWICK, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Genard Chestnut v. State, 145 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…la. 1st DCA 2013), Colson v. State, 114 So. 3d 415, 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), and Youman v. State, 112 So. 3d 693, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); and, in Case No. 1D13-1208, we remand for entry of a written probation revocation order, see Dunklin v. State, 135 So. 3d 349, 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). In all other respects, we affirm the judgment and sentence and the revocation of Chestnut’s probation. AFFIRMED and REMANDED with directions. BENTON, WETHERELL, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.…
Authorities Cited
- Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 2011)