Torrejon v. Martin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Torrejon v. Martin

882 So. 2d 516, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13889, 2004 WL 2101886

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 22, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-963

StatusPublished

This text of 882 So. 2d 516 (Torrejon v. Martin) 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

Torrejon v. Martin, 882 So. 2d 516, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13889, 2004 WL 2101886 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Watsson Herbert Torre-jon, appeals from an order dismissing the action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). We reverse.

Within the one year period established by Rule 1.420(e), the defendants, Enrique Martin, et al., filed a motion arguing that the action should be dismissed for failure to substitute parties within the 90-day time period established by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(a)(1) [Rule 1.260(a)(1) motion to dismiss]. Although the Rule 1.260(a)(1) motion to dismiss was properly filed, it was never docketed.

The filing of the defendants’ Rule 1.260(a)(1) motion to dismiss constitutes record activity directed toward the disposition of the case. Turcio v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 727 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Simmons v. Dakal Dev. Corp., 632 So.2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Further, “[a] plaintiff can rely upon a defendant’s activities to constitute record activity.” DeVane v. P.J. Constructors, Inc., 710 So.2d 1375, 1377 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the action for lack of prosecution.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Watsson Herbert Torre-jon, appeals from an order dismissing the action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). We reverse.

Within the one year period established by Rule 1.420(e), the defendants, Enrique Martin, et al., filed a motion arguing that the action should be dismissed for failure to substitute parties within the 90-day time period established by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(a)(1) [Rule 1.260(a)(1) motion to dismiss]. Although the Rule 1.260(a)(1) motion to dismiss was properly filed, it was never docketed.

The filing of the defendants’ Rule 1.260(a)(1) motion to dismiss constitutes record activity directed toward the disposition of the case. Turcio v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 727 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Simmons v. Dakal Dev. Corp., 632 So.2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Further, “[a] plaintiff can rely upon a defendant’s activities to constitute record activity.” DeVane v. P.J. Constructors, Inc., 710 So.2d 1375, 1377 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the action for lack of prosecution.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

882 So. 2d 516, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13889, 2004 WL 2101886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torrejon-v-martin-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack