DEBORAH BRUNS, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY F. JONES, M.D., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit for failure to timely prosecute. The trial court dismissed the action after finding no record activity for one year but failed to address whether non-record activity constituted good cause to prevent dismissal. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that non-record activity may constitute good cause under the applicable rule.
Non-record activity may, in some cases, constitute good cause under Rule 1.420(e) and can prevent dismissal for failure to prosecute. The trial court erred by failing to rule on whether good cause was demonstrated and must consider this issue on remand.
[1] Non-record activity may constitute good cause to prevent dismissal for failure to prosecute.
[2] A trial court must rule on whether good cause has been shown to keep an action pending when presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Non-record activity may, in some cases, constitute good cause under the present rule, such as will prevent a dismissal for failure to prosecute.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that non-record activity can constitute good cause to prevent dismissal under Rule 1.420(e)
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff's action was dismissed for failure to prosecute after no record activity occurred for one year preceding the motion to dismiss. However,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Non-Record Activity cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a “final judgment of dismissal” for failure to timely prosecute.
The order says:
The court finds that it does no [sic] affirmatively appear from filing of pleadings, Order of Court, or otherwise for a period of one year before serving the motion that the action is being prosecuted ...
The order does not find that the non-record activity which occurred was insufficient good cause to prevent the dismissal. There was certain non-record activity engaged in between the parties, including an attempt to obtain discovery via a videotaped deposition.. While it is necessary to obtain a court order for this type of discovery the plaintiff was attempting to do so by agreement rather than court order. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.310(b)(4). It was conceded here and at the hearing before the trial court that no record activity occurred within the requisite one-year time period, so it was only non-record activity which was to be considered by the court. The issue was whether, under Rule 1.420(e), appellant demonstrated good cause why the action should have remained pending. The appellant urged the court to consider certain non-record activity as demonstrating good cause for not dismissing the action. The appellee urged the court to disregard non-record activity on the basis it could not constitute good cause for not dismissing the action. Non-record activity may, in some cases, constitute good cause under the present rule, such as will prevent a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Barnes v. Ross, 386 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); American Eastern Corporation v. Henry Blanton, Inc., 382 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); F.M.C. Corporation v. Chatman, 368 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. den., 379 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1979). The trial court found that no record activity had occurred during the year preceding the motion to dismiss (a point not in dispute) but made no ruling on whether or not good cause had been shown to keep the action pending. This was the real issue, and should have been ruled upon by the court.
We reverse the order appealed from and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, J., concurs.
COBB, C.J., dissents with opinion.
COBB, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
The trial court’s order, quoted in the majority, shows that the trial court considered the pleadings, court orders, and “otherwise” — the latter an ambivalent term that may refer to record and/or nonrecord activity. The nonrecord activity was an attempt to obtain an agreement regarding the admissibility of a videotaped deposition. In accordance with the presumption of correctness, we should employ a construction of the order upholding the trial court’s judgment.
Even if the trial court made no finding of fact on the issue raised, as contended by the majority, it would still be our obligation to review the appellate record and affirm the trial court’s judgment if it is supported by that record. Schmeck v. Sea Oats Condominium Assn., Inc., 441 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Here, the evidence falls far short of establishing good cause for the appellant’s failure to prosecute. See Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Hill, 76 So. 2d 861 (Fla.1955); Appraisal Group, Inc. v. Visual Communications, Inc., 426 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Carter v. DeCarion, 400 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1982); Steisel v. Birnholz, 313 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), review denied, 330 So. 2d 14 (Fla.1976). The majority’s requirement of a more express written finding by the trial court — presumably, by elu cidating that the term “otherwise” does encompass nonrecord activity considered by the. trial court — is a waste of judicial time and contravenes a large body of judicial precedent. See, e.g., Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1984); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1972); Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So. 2d 483 (Fla.1961).
I would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campus Commc'ns, Inc. v. Earnhardt, 821 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…e v. Kaplan, 687 So. 2d 863, 865 (Fla. 5th DCA) (defining good cause, in the context of rule 1.420(e) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, as "proof of some compelling reason" or "excusable conduct other than negligence”) (citing Bruns v. Jones, 481 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)), review denied, 697 So. 2d 511 (Fla.1997), disapproved of on other grounds, Metropolitan Dade County v. Hall, 784 So. 2d 1087 (Fla.2001). . The evidence and testimony contained in the record in the instant case confirm the need…
-
Levine v. Kaplan, 687 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…case should have remained pending. We disagree. Good cause is excusable conduct other than negligence or inattention to deadlines. It has been defined by our courts as proof of some compelling reason why the suit was not prosecuted. Bruns v. Jones, 481 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). For example, a showing of good cause may include proof of a calamity or proof of an opposing party’s actions which prevented the plaintiff from prosecuting the cause. Here, in his written response to the dismissal motions, Dr. L…
-
Alphonso Prosperty Smith v. State, 479 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ellant’s sentences and remand for resen-tencing. This reversal is without prejudice, however, to the state’s right to seek enhanced sentencing under the habitual felony offender statute, Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1983).4 Cf. Brady v. State, 481 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (habitual felony offender statute a viable alternative to sentencing guidelines, provided trial court otherwise adequately states reasons for departure). [*809] Convictions AFFIRMED; sentences REVERSED and REMANDED with direction…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1972)
- Vandergriff v. Wallyce V. Vandergriff, 456 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1984)
- Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1961)
- Am. E. Corp. v. Henry Blanton, Inc., 382 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- F. M. C. Corp. v. Chatman, 368 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Barnes v. Dr. Patricia Ross & the Ladies Ctr. of S. Fla., Inc., 386 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Carter v. DeCARION, 400 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Hill, 76 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1955)