Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Escalona v. Kersten

Escalona v. Kersten

682 So. 2d 223, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11606, 1996 WL 637665
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 6, 1996
DocketNo. 96-579
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 682 So. 2d 223 (Escalona v. Kersten) 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
Escalona v. Kersten, 682 So. 2d 223, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11606, 1996 WL 637665 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Felix Escalona appeals from a final order of the trial court which dismissed the second amended complaint for lack of prosecution. It is conceded that Escalona filed a notice of hearing on Jones’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint within the one year period established by the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e), and we find that the filing of a notice of hearing is record activity within the meaning of the rule. Heinz v. Watson, 615 So.2d 750, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 624 So.2d 266 (Fla.1993).

The omission of the date in the certificate of service was not so egregious as to render the certificate a nullity in this instance.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

Related

Moossun v. Orlando Regional Health Care
826 So. 2d 945 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)
NEI v. Foodtech Hialeah, Inc.
777 So. 2d 1191 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
682 So. 2d 223, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11606, 1996 WL 637665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escalona-v-kersten-fladistctapp-1996.