Uvanni v. Gallenga

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Uvanni v. Gallenga

619 So. 2d 31, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6155, 1993 WL 191962

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1459

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 619 So. 2d 31 (Uvanni v. Gallenga) 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

Uvanni v. Gallenga, 619 So. 2d 31, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6155, 1993 WL 191962 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, as plaintiffs failed to serve defendant within the period mandated by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070(j). Rule 1.070(j) provides that service of the initial process and pleading must be made within 120 days of filing, and that unless good cause is shown why such service has not been effected, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed this action on June 28,1990; the summons directed to Dr. Gallenga was not issued until September 25, 1991 — one year and three months later. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint. See Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1992) (where defendant did not attempt to obtain service for 110 days after filing complaint and gave no acceptable reason for delay, dismissal of action pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.070(j) not abuse of discretion); Hernandez v. Page, 580 So.2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA1991) (neither settlement negotiations nor mistake or inadvertence of counsel, without more, constitute sufficient good cause to avoid dismissal under rule 1.070©).

We do not reach the remaining issues on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, as plaintiffs failed to serve defendant within the period mandated by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070(j). Rule 1.070(j) provides that service of the initial process and pleading must be made within 120 days of filing, and that unless good cause is shown why such service has not been effected, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed this action on June 28,1990; the summons directed to Dr. Gallenga was not issued until September 25, 1991 — one year and three months later. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint. See Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1992) (where defendant did not attempt to obtain service for 110 days after filing complaint and gave no acceptable reason for delay, dismissal of action pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.070(j) not abuse of discretion); Hernandez v. Page, 580 So.2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA1991) (neither settlement negotiations nor mistake or inadvertence of counsel, without more, constitute sufficient good cause to avoid dismissal under rule 1.070©).

We do not reach the remaining issues on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

619 So. 2d 31, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6155, 1993 WL 191962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uvanni-v-gallenga-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack