Barton Realty, Inc. v. Lopez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barton Realty, Inc. v. Lopez

872 So. 2d 325, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5210, 2004 WL 784895

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-2761

StatusPublished

This text of 872 So. 2d 325 (Barton Realty, Inc. v. Lopez) 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

Barton Realty, Inc. v. Lopez, 872 So. 2d 325, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5210, 2004 WL 784895 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

RAMIREZ, J.

The plaintiff, Barton Realty, Inc., appeals from an order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution pursuant to rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Because we conclude that the plaintiff failed to show good cause as to why the action should remain pending, we affirm.

It is undisputed that no record activity in the cause took place for a period of one year. Plaintiff argues, however, that there was good cause to maintain the case pending because there was a third-party complaint filed, which was not at issue. We stated in CPI Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Industrias St. Jack’s, S.A. De C.V., 870 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), that the resolution of a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute involves a two-step process. “First, the defendant is required to show there has been no record activity for one year preceding the motion. Second, if there has been no record activity, the plaintiff has an opportunity to establish good cause why the action should remain pending.” Id. [326]*326We also made clear that the “good cause” criteria was different from the “excusable neglect” standard.

Plaintiff cites to Shaw & Keeter Motor Co., Inc. v. Maris Distrib. Co., Inc., 403 So.2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), for the proposition that, because the third-party complaint was not at issue, plaintiff could not notice the case for trial. He thus argues that this constitutes good cause. The Shaw case simply held that record activity on a third-party complaint during the year preceding the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was sufficient to prevent the dismissal of plaintiffs complaint. Id. at 571. In our case, there was no record activity at all, either in connection with the plaintiffs complaint or the third-party complaint. The clear import of the Shaw decision is that record activity in connection with the third-party complaint serves as activity in the entire case. Under plaintiffs argument, its complaint could simply be held captive ad infi-nitum because the third-party complaint was not being prosecuted. That is not the law in our state. The plaintiff can always move to sever pursuant to rule 1.270(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.¹

We thus conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for lack of prosecution.

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

RAMIREZ, J.

The plaintiff, Barton Realty, Inc., appeals from an order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution pursuant to rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Because we conclude that the plaintiff failed to show good cause as to why the action should remain pending, we affirm.

It is undisputed that no record activity in the cause took place for a period of one year. Plaintiff argues, however, that there was good cause to maintain the case pending because there was a third-party complaint filed, which was not at issue. We stated in CPI Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Industrias St. Jack’s, S.A. De C.V., 870 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), that the resolution of a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute involves a two-step process. “First, the defendant is required to show there has been no record activity for one year preceding the motion. Second, if there has been no record activity, the plaintiff has an opportunity to establish good cause why the action should remain pending.” Id. [326]*326We also made clear that the “good cause” criteria was different from the “excusable neglect” standard.

Plaintiff cites to Shaw & Keeter Motor Co., Inc. v. Maris Distrib. Co., Inc., 403 So.2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), for the proposition that, because the third-party complaint was not at issue, plaintiff could not notice the case for trial. He thus argues that this constitutes good cause. The Shaw case simply held that record activity on a third-party complaint during the year preceding the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was sufficient to prevent the dismissal of plaintiffs complaint. Id. at 571. In our case, there was no record activity at all, either in connection with the plaintiffs complaint or the third-party complaint. The clear import of the Shaw decision is that record activity in connection with the third-party complaint serves as activity in the entire case. Under plaintiffs argument, its complaint could simply be held captive ad infi-nitum because the third-party complaint was not being prosecuted. That is not the law in our state. The plaintiff can always move to sever pursuant to rule 1.270(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.¹

We thus conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for lack of prosecution.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

872 So. 2d 325, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5210, 2004 WL 784895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barton-realty-inc-v-lopez-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack