DARYL LESLIE LAVENDER, APPELLANT,
v.
BETTY E. TAYLOR, 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 the trial court's order of dismissal for lack of prosecution was proper because the record activity was insufficient to preclude dismissal and no good cause was shown for the delay.
The trial court dismissed a lawsuit for lack of prosecution. The appellant argued that certain record activities should have precluded dismissal and t…
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 Case Management cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s order dismissing this lawsuit for lack of prosecution pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(3). The trial court’s motion, notice and judgment of dismissal relating to the failure to prosecute, was not the kind of record activity sufficient to preclude dismissal. See Norflor Construction Corp. v. City of Gainesville, 512 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1988); Chemical Bank of New York v. Polakov, 448 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Nelson v. Stonewall Insurance Co., 440 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Boeing Co. v. Merchant, 397 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 468 (Fla.1982). As Judge Dauksch wrote for this court in Heinz v. Watson, 615 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993):
We refuse to construe appropriate case management activities (trial court’s re quest for ease status report) in such a way as to give the parties leave to ignore the case for another year before dismissal is possible. Such a construction would thwart the purpose of case management and the purpose of rule 1.420(e) itself — to encourage prompt and efficient prosecution of cases and to clear court dockets of eases that have essentially been abandoned.
Indeed, if the actions described above were sufficient record activity to prevent application of the dismissal rule, the rule could never be enforced, since mere enforcement would prevent its application.
Nor did appellant establish good cause via non-record activity as to why the suit should remain pending. See Martin v. Putnam County Blood Bank, Inc., 683 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Dion v. Bald, 664 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Norflor. AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., and W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Norflor Constr. Corp. v. City OF Gainesville & CH2M Hill Se., Inc., 512 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Nelson v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 440 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Heinz v. Watson, 615 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Babb v. State, 397 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- The Boeing Co. v. Jessee David Merchant and Flora Merchant, 397 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Dion v. Christopher E. Bald, M.D., 664 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- State v. Ferro, 683 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Chem. Bank OF NEW York v. Polakov, 448 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)