Ward v. Crews

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ward v. Crews

133 So. 3d 1210, 2014 WL 982527, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3505

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-979

StatusPublished

This text of 133 So. 3d 1210 (Ward v. Crews) 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

Ward v. Crews, 133 So. 3d 1210, 2014 WL 982527, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3505 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Ward appeals from a final dismissal of his civil complaint against twenty-seven defendants. He challenges the court’s decision to set aside a prior judgment of default and the court’s subsequent decision to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to serve the defendants within the time frame the court had specified pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j). We find no reversible error in the decisions to set aside the default judgment and to dismiss the lawsuit as to twenty-two of the defendants. The court erred, however, in finding that Appellant failed to serve five of the defendants during the required time frame, as the requested proof of service had been filed before the court issued its final order.¹ Accordingly, we affirm the final order as to the twenty-two un-served defendants but reverse and remand for further proceedings concerning the claims against Defendants Aviles, Wiggs, Coleman, Snow, and Springer only.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

THOMAS, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Ward appeals from a final dismissal of his civil complaint against twenty-seven defendants. He challenges the court’s decision to set aside a prior judgment of default and the court’s subsequent decision to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to serve the defendants within the time frame the court had specified pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j). We find no reversible error in the decisions to set aside the default judgment and to dismiss the lawsuit as to twenty-two of the defendants. The court erred, however, in finding that Appellant failed to serve five of the defendants during the required time frame, as the requested proof of service had been filed before the court issued its final order.¹ Accordingly, we affirm the final order as to the twenty-two un-served defendants but reverse and remand for further proceedings concerning the claims against Defendants Aviles, Wiggs, Coleman, Snow, and Springer only.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

THOMAS, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 3d 1210, 2014 WL 982527, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-crews-fladistctapp-2014.