KENNETH ANDRES, BRENDA BAGLEY AND JOHN W. EASON, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2005-10-11
No. 1D04-0406
Benton, J., Webster, J., Polston, J.
911 So. 2d 1286 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2005)

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.

Synopsis

The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e), finding no abuse of discretion and rejecting appellants' challenge to prior interlocutory orders.


Holding

A dismissal for failure to prosecute is valid and independent of the merits of prior interlocutory decisions when no record activity occurs for one year.


Headnotes

[1] A dismissal for failure to prosecute under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) is entirely independent of the merits of prior interlocutory decisions and is reviewed…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Facts & Procedural History

Appellants Kenneth Andres, Brenda Bagley, and John W. Eason brought an action against the City of Jacksonville that remained inactive for one year.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
BENTON, J.

BENTON, J.

We affirm the trial court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(e)(2003) (“All actions in which it appears on the face of the record that no activity ... has occurred for a period of 1 year shall be dismissed....”); Spikes v. Neal, 792 So. 2d 571, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“Our standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion.”); Lenion v. Calohan, 652 So. 2d 461, 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“ ‘For a party to establish good cause, it must show a compelling reason to avoid dismissal where there has been no record activity.’ American Eastern Corp. v. Henry Blanton, Inc., 382 So. 2d 863, 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).”).

We decline the appellants’ invitation to review antecedent interlocutory orders, as review of those orders is beyond the scope of this appeal. “Furthermore, the validity of a dismissal for failure to prosecute is entirely independent of the merits of prior interlocutory decisions.” John’s Insulation, Inc. v. L. Addison & Assocs., Inc., 156 F. 3d 101, 107 (1st Cir.1998). See id. at 103-08; DuBose v. Minnesota, 893 F. 2d 169, 171 (8th Cir.1990); Huey v. Teledyne, Inc., 608 F. 2d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir.1979); Marshall v. Sielaff, 492 F. 2d 917, 919 (3d Cir.1974). But see Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 903 F. 2d 176, 178-79 (2d Cir.1990); Nichols v. Mobile Bd. of Realtors, Inc., 675 F. 2d 671, 675 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982).

Affirmed.

WEBSTER and POLSTON, JJ„ concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw