Pearson v. Pefkarou

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pearson v. Pefkarou

734 So. 2d 551, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7268, 1999 WL 346587

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 2, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2550

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 734 So. 2d 551 (Pearson v. Pefkarou) 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

Pearson v. Pefkarou, 734 So. 2d 551, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7268, 1999 WL 346587 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court dismissed Harry Pearson’s medical malpractice claim for lack of prosecution, pursuant to rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Our review of the record reveals that there had been no affirmative activity in the case for a period of one year preceding the filing of the motion to dismiss and good cause had not been shown as to why the action should remain pending. As a consequence the trial court had no choice but to grant the motion. See Industrial Trucks of Fla., Inc. v. Gonzalez, 351 So.2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Mr. Pearson’s suggestion that his status as a pro se litigant should excuse his failure to prosecute his cause on a timely basis, while understandable, must be rejected. Self-representation does not relieve a party of the obligation to comply with the rules of court. See § 454.18, Fla. Stat. (1997); Carr v. Grace, 321 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 945 (Fla.1977).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court dismissed Harry Pearson’s medical malpractice claim for lack of prosecution, pursuant to rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Our review of the record reveals that there had been no affirmative activity in the case for a period of one year preceding the filing of the motion to dismiss and good cause had not been shown as to why the action should remain pending. As a consequence the trial court had no choice but to grant the motion. See Industrial Trucks of Fla., Inc. v. Gonzalez, 351 So.2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Mr. Pearson’s suggestion that his status as a pro se litigant should excuse his failure to prosecute his cause on a timely basis, while understandable, must be rejected. Self-representation does not relieve a party of the obligation to comply with the rules of court. See § 454.18, Fla. Stat. (1997); Carr v. Grace, 321 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 945 (Fla.1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

734 So. 2d 551, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7268, 1999 WL 346587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-pefkarou-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack