Dunn v. Sea World of Florida, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dunn v. Sea World of Florida, Inc.

702 So. 2d 311, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14053, 1997 WL 777280

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3005

StatusPublished

This text of 702 So. 2d 311 (Dunn v. Sea World of Florida, Inc.) 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

Dunn v. Sea World of Florida, Inc., 702 So. 2d 311, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14053, 1997 WL 777280 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, Judge.

The court dismissed this action pursuant to rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The Dunns admit that no action was taken within the year before the motion to dismiss was filed but contend that the fact that their attorney’s computer crashed during that year was good cause to permit the case to continue. The trial court found that the computer crash was not sufficient cause to avoid the consequence of the rule. This appears to be a decision within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Edgecumbe v. American General Corp., 613 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). It also appears to be consistent with Morris v. NN Investors Life Insurance Co., Inc., 553 So.2d 1306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 563 So.2d 633 (Fla.1990); Martin v. Putnam County Blood Bank, Inc., 683 So.2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and Lenion v. Calohan, 652 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, J., concurs. GRIFFIN, C.J., concurs with result only.

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

HARRIS, Judge.

The court dismissed this action pursuant to rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The Dunns admit that no action was taken within the year before the motion to dismiss was filed but contend that the fact that their attorney’s computer crashed during that year was good cause to permit the case to continue. The trial court found that the computer crash was not sufficient cause to avoid the consequence of the rule. This appears to be a decision within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Edgecumbe v. American General Corp., 613 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). It also appears to be consistent with Morris v. NN Investors Life Insurance Co., Inc., 553 So.2d 1306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 563 So.2d 633 (Fla.1990); Martin v. Putnam County Blood Bank, Inc., 683 So.2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and Lenion v. Calohan, 652 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, J., concurs. GRIFFIN, C.J., concurs with result only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 So. 2d 311, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14053, 1997 WL 777280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-sea-world-of-florida-inc-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack