ANTHONY L. LIUZZO, APPELLANT,
v.
ED CRAPO, PROPERTY APPRAISER OF ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, which acknowledges recent record activity, cannot be granted if that activity occurred within one year of the motion.
[1] A motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Rule 1.420(e) is not self-executing and requires action by the court or a motion before dismissal.
[2] A cause of action may not be dismissed for failure to prosecute if further prosecution of the cause has occurred before the court acts on the motion to dismiss.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a complaint for review of a property tax assessment. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, noting that the last…
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 Record Activity cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
Appellant appeals from an order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. We reverse.
In December, 1984, appellant filed a complaint for review of a property tax assessment. Appellee filed an answer shortly thereafter. On May 15,1985, appellee filed a request for production. On May 29, 1986, the appellee filed the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. Although the motion to dismiss alleged entitlement to dismissal because there had been no record activity for a year following the May 15, 1985 request for production, this motion expressly recognized that there had been record activity one week prior to the filing of appellee's motion to dismiss. The motion stated in pertinent part:
On or about May 22, 1986, Plaintiff filed an undated notice of service of interrogatories. The first page of such interrogatories (copy attached) reflects service by mail on May 22, 1986, clearly more than a year since the last activity of record, May 15, 1985.
Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e) entitles a defendant, under certain circumstances, to an order of dismissal for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the action.1 However, Rule 1.420(e) is not self executing. As stated by our sister court in Carter v. DeCarion, 400 So. 2d 521, 522 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981):
The rule requires the filing of a Motion to Dismiss or action by the court before a cause may be dismissed [citation omitted], and such action must be undertaken before there is any further prosecution of the cause [citation omitted]. We find no merit in appellee’s argument that the trial court’s order should be construed as finding that appellant’s interrogatories did not constitute genuine record activity designed to progress the suit to judgment. Compare Karcher v. F. W. Schinz And Associates, Inc., 487 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Appellee’s motion to dismiss does not allege that the interrogatories were disingenuous, nor does the record contain anything suggesting such. Moreover, the order of dismissal makes no reference to the interrogatories.
Accordingly, the appealed order is REVERSED.
WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. . Rule 1.420(e) provides:
Failure to Prosecute. All actions in which it appears on the face of the record that no activity by filing of pleadings, order of court or otherwise has occurred for a period of one year shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on the motion of any interested person, whether a party to the action or not, after reasonable notice to the parties, unless a stipulation staying the action is approved by the court or a stay order has been filed or a party shows good cause in writing at least five days before the hearing on the motion why the action should remain pending. Mere inaction for a period of less than one year shall not be sufficient cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anthony v. Schmitt, 557 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…ition); Ferguson v. Carter, 520 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 529 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1988) (issuance of subpoena for production of documents); de Richemont v. Osias, 516 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (two interrogatories); Liuzzo v. Crapo, 504 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (request for production); Hunter v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., 477 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1986) (notice to produce); Orange Elec. Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 467 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 198…
-
Hanson v. Poteet, 556 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…re to prosecute. Only a few days before her motion, the defendants had filed their motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. Under these circumstances, that motion seems to be an act of prosecution which resets the one-year clock. Liuzzo v. Crapo, 504 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Kinsey v. Skyline Corp., 395 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Knowles v. Gilbert, 208 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). We believe that this case is distinguishable from Barnett Bank of East Polk County v. Fleming, 508 So. 2d 718 (F…
-
Q.I.P. Corp. v. Berger, 547 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…See Belli v. Porsche-Audi of Broward, Inc., 503 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Philips v. Marshall Berwick Chevrolet, Inc., 467 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Santa v. Thermo-Air Service, Inc., 506 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Liuzzo v. Crapo, 504 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Orange Electric Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 467 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The only remaining theory upon which to sustain the order of dismissal is under an inherent power to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute unr…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carter v. DeCARION, 400 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Karcher v. F.W. Schinz & Assocs., Inc., 487 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)