Anderson v. Zarta

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anderson v. Zarta

330 So. 2d 545, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15042

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1327

StatusPublished

This text of 330 So. 2d 545 (Anderson v. Zarta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Zarta, 330 So. 2d 545, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15042 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was properly dismissed for lack oif prosecution under F.R.C.P. 1.-420(e). Plaintiffs did not appear at the hearing and did not show good cause in writing why the action should remain pending at least five days prior to the hearing.

Thereafter, plaintiffs moved, with an unverified pleading, to set aside the order and dismissal saying that while the notice of hearing was received by plaintiffs’ law firm, the particular lawyer handling the case did not receive it due to the fact that he was busy at that time concluding his practice and due to possible clerical error.

The trial court reinstated the cause without evidence or testimony being taken. Defendants appeal. We reverse.

At no time have plaintiffs shown good cause in writing under F.R.C.P. 1.420(e) “why the action should remain pending.” Their motion to set aside the dismissal was, at best, a questionable excuse for not appearing at the hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss so as to entitle the matter to be re-heard. However, there has been, as said, a total failure to show good cause as to why the action should remain pending as contemplated and as required with reference to the one year period of inactivity by F.R.C.P. 1.420(e), e. g. Barrentine v. Vulcan Materials Company, 216 So.2d 57 (1st DCA Fla.App.1st 1968); Laug v. Murphy, 205 So.2d 695 (Fla.App. 4th 1968).

REVERSED AND REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the cause for lack of prosecution.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS and MA-GER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This action was properly dismissed for lack oif prosecution under F.R.C.P. 1.-420(e). Plaintiffs did not appear at the hearing and did not show good cause in writing why the action should remain pending at least five days prior to the hearing.

Thereafter, plaintiffs moved, with an unverified pleading, to set aside the order and dismissal saying that while the notice of hearing was received by plaintiffs’ law firm, the particular lawyer handling the case did not receive it due to the fact that he was busy at that time concluding his practice and due to possible clerical error.

The trial court reinstated the cause without evidence or testimony being taken. Defendants appeal. We reverse.

At no time have plaintiffs shown good cause in writing under F.R.C.P. 1.420(e) “why the action should remain pending.” Their motion to set aside the dismissal was, at best, a questionable excuse for not appearing at the hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss so as to entitle the matter to be re-heard. However, there has been, as said, a total failure to show good cause as to why the action should remain pending as contemplated and as required with reference to the one year period of inactivity by F.R.C.P. 1.420(e), e. g. Barrentine v. Vulcan Materials Company, 216 So.2d 57 (1st DCA Fla.App.1st 1968); Laug v. Murphy, 205 So.2d 695 (Fla.App. 4th 1968).

REVERSED AND REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the cause for lack of prosecution.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS and MA-GER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 So. 2d 545, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-zarta-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack