State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Chasteen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Chasteen

737 So. 2d 1253, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11005, 1999 WL 625549

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 18, 1999·No. No. 98-2975·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

The trial court dismissed this case for lack of prosecution pursuant to rule 1.420(e), finding that there had been no activity for a period of one year, and plaintiff appeals.

The pertinent dates began on March 5, 1997, when plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was argued. The court advised plaintiffs counsel to submit a proposed summary judgment that day, but it was not until eleven months later, on February 9, 1998 that plaintiff submitted the judgment. By this time the case was pending before a new judge, who advised plaintiffs counsel by letter that he was reluctant to sign a summary judgment based on a hearing that had occurred before a predecessor judge.

No further action occurred until June 8, 1998, when the successor judge issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Plaintiff, in order to show good cause, responded that he had submitted the documents for entry of summary judgment in February of 1998, which were during the one year period, and asserted that the case should not be dismissed. The trial court nevertheless dismissed.

Clearly the activity of plaintiffs counsel in submitting the summary judgment to the trial judge within the one year period was “record activity.” See Smith v. Broward County, 654 So.2d 1297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(a letter to the trial judge requesting a trial date was sufficient record activity to avoid dismissal). We therefore reverse.

TAYLOR, J., and BLANC, PETER D., Associate Judge, concur.

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

KLEIN, J.

The trial court dismissed this case for lack of prosecution pursuant to rule 1.420(e), finding that there had been no activity for a period of one year, and plaintiff appeals.

The pertinent dates began on March 5, 1997, when plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was argued. The court advised plaintiffs counsel to submit a proposed summary judgment that day, but it was not until eleven months later, on February 9, 1998 that plaintiff submitted the judgment. By this time the case was pending before a new judge, who advised plaintiffs counsel by letter that he was reluctant to sign a summary judgment based on a hearing that had occurred before a predecessor judge.

No further action occurred until June 8, 1998, when the successor judge issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Plaintiff, in order to show good cause, responded that he had submitted the documents for entry of summary judgment in February of 1998, which were during the one year period, and asserted that the case should not be dismissed. The trial court nevertheless dismissed.

Clearly the activity of plaintiffs counsel in submitting the summary judgment to the trial judge within the one year period was “record activity.” See Smith v. Broward County, 654 So.2d 1297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(a letter to the trial judge requesting a trial date was sufficient record activity to avoid dismissal). We therefore reverse.

TAYLOR, J., and BLANC, PETER D., Associate Judge, concur.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Chasteen, 737 So. 2d 1253, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11005, 1999 WL 625549 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

737 So. 2d 1253 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Chasteen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related