General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Lanman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Lanman

630 So. 2d 682, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 308, 1994 WL 19063

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1634

StatusPublished

This text of 630 So. 2d 682 (General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Lanman) 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

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Lanman, 630 So. 2d 682, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 308, 1994 WL 19063 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. As “good cause” for why plaintiffs/appellees failed to serve a defendant within the 120-day rule, see Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(f), appellees stated that pri- or counsel was attempting settlement with another codefendant. That does not constitute “good cause” for failing to serve a code-fendant. Cf. Hernandez v. Page, 580 So.2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Further, appellees’ counsel’s subsequent difficulties long after the time limit for serving appellant'passed also cannot constitute “good cause” to show why service was not made timely. The failure of appellees’ prior counsel to serve appellant within 120 days requires dismissal. See Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So.2d 538 (Fla.1992).

GLICKSTEIN, ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. As “good cause” for why plaintiffs/appellees failed to serve a defendant within the 120-day rule, see Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(f), appellees stated that pri- or counsel was attempting settlement with another codefendant. That does not constitute “good cause” for failing to serve a code-fendant. Cf. Hernandez v. Page, 580 So.2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Further, appellees’ counsel’s subsequent difficulties long after the time limit for serving appellant'passed also cannot constitute “good cause” to show why service was not made timely. The failure of appellees’ prior counsel to serve appellant within 120 days requires dismissal. See Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So.2d 538 (Fla.1992).

GLICKSTEIN, ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

630 So. 2d 682, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 308, 1994 WL 19063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-motors-acceptance-corp-v-lanman-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack