LEONARDO GOMEZ AND GYLMAR DEVELOPMENTS, INC., APPELLANTS,

v.

GIBRALTAR PRIVATE BANK & TRUST COMPANY, A FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Verena Von Mitschke-Collande v. Skipworth Props. Ltd., 201 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
  …igence claim has now run. This is so, as has already been explained, because Rule 1.070(j) is a rule of administrative convenience which should not trump the preference for trials on the merits. Id. at 1043; accord, Premier Capital, LLC v. Davalle, 994 So. 2d 360, 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (reversing dismissal order where trial court “failed to consider that it was permitted to grant an extension of time for service even without a showing of good cause”). The trial court in this case overlooked this Court’s di…
• Vennila Amaran v. Aubyn Marath, M.D., 34 So. 3d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
  …ere good cause or excusable [*95] neglect is shown. Id.; Amendment to 1.070(j), 720 So. 2d at 505. In addition, it affords trial courts broad discretion to extend the time for service, even when good cause is not shown. Premier Cap., LLC v. Davalle, 994 So. 2d 360, 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). However, as we have cautioned, “this discretion is not limitless.” Shtalenkov v. Deatherage, 943 So. 2d 200, 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). One limitation that has developed in our law on this subject is attorney inadvertence or m…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Gonzalez v. Amor (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)

Authorities Cited

• Puma Enters. Corp. v. Vitale, 566 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)