Bellomio v. Malinski

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bellomio v. Malinski

624 So. 2d 369, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9445, 1993 WL 365631

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 21, 1993

DocketNo. 93-460

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 624 So. 2d 369 (Bellomio v. Malinski) 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

Bellomio v. Malinski, 624 So. 2d 369, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9445, 1993 WL 365631 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Bellomio and University Dental Health Center appeal an adverse final judgment. We reverse.

Bellomio and University Dental Health Center brought a legal malpractice suit. The trial court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within twenty days. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs’ counsel was allowed to withdraw. Insofar as pertinent here, the trial court entered a written order allowing plaintiffs twenty days to retain new counsel. The order stayed the obligation to file the amended complaint until new counsel was retained.

Plaintiffs retained new counsel on the 29th day, instead of the 20th day. Counsel served [370]*370a notice of appearance and a motion for extension of time to file the amended complaint. In the meantime, defendants moved to strike plaintiffs’ pleadings because they had not obtained counsel by the 20th day. The court struck plaintiffs’ pleadings and entered judgment in favor of defendants.

Florida’s public policy favors disposition of lawsuits on the merits. See, e.g., North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849 (Fla.1962); Coggin v. Barfield, 150 Fla. 551, 554, 8 So.2d 9, 11 (1942); Sekot Laboratories, Inc. v. Gleason, 585 So.2d 286, 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Apolaro v. Falcon, 566 So.2d 815, 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In our view the extreme sanction of dismissal was not warranted where the parties were nine days late in obtaining substitute counsel. Defendants have not shown that they were prejudiced by reason of the delay. We reverse the order striking pleadings, and the final judgment entered thereon, and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Bellomio and University Dental Health Center appeal an adverse final judgment. We reverse.

Bellomio and University Dental Health Center brought a legal malpractice suit. The trial court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within twenty days. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs’ counsel was allowed to withdraw. Insofar as pertinent here, the trial court entered a written order allowing plaintiffs twenty days to retain new counsel. The order stayed the obligation to file the amended complaint until new counsel was retained.

Plaintiffs retained new counsel on the 29th day, instead of the 20th day. Counsel served [370]*370a notice of appearance and a motion for extension of time to file the amended complaint. In the meantime, defendants moved to strike plaintiffs’ pleadings because they had not obtained counsel by the 20th day. The court struck plaintiffs’ pleadings and entered judgment in favor of defendants.

Florida’s public policy favors disposition of lawsuits on the merits. See, e.g., North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849 (Fla.1962); Coggin v. Barfield, 150 Fla. 551, 554, 8 So.2d 9, 11 (1942); Sekot Laboratories, Inc. v. Gleason, 585 So.2d 286, 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Apolaro v. Falcon, 566 So.2d 815, 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In our view the extreme sanction of dismissal was not warranted where the parties were nine days late in obtaining substitute counsel. Defendants have not shown that they were prejudiced by reason of the delay. We reverse the order striking pleadings, and the final judgment entered thereon, and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 So. 2d 369, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9445, 1993 WL 365631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellomio-v-malinski-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack