Burger King Corp. v. Rudge

630 So. 2d 632, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 59
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 12, 1994
DocketNos. 93-1423, 93-1424
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 630 So. 2d 632 (Burger King Corp. v. Rudge) 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
Burger King Corp. v. Rudge, 630 So. 2d 632, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 59 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. The trial court declined to dismiss appellee’s case even though the ap-pellee did not effect service of process upon the appellants within 120 days of filing suit. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070(i).1 The trial court relied upon the holding in Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So.2d 538 (Fla.1992), that trial courts have “broad discretion in declining to dismiss an action if reasonable cause for the failure to effect timely service is documented.” Id. at 540. Here, the appel-lee’s attorneys put on substantial evidence demonstrating their own “excusable neglect” in delaying service because a serious ethical question had arisen as to their representation of the appellee. We believe this was sufficient to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion.

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur. POLEN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

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

Related

Patterson v. Loewenstein
686 So. 2d 776 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Devcon International Corp. v. Mejia
636 So. 2d 200 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
630 So. 2d 632, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burger-king-corp-v-rudge-fladistctapp-1994.