PETERSEN & HAWTHORNE, P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
EMI ENTERPRISES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ED'S AUTO REPAIR, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ED AND MARY THIBEAULT, 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.
Petersen & Hawthorne appealed a trial court order dismissing its lawsuit without prejudice after the firm failed to attend a case management conference. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court lacked authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution under Rule 1.420(e) and failed to make required findings of willful and contumacious conduct under Rule 1.200(c).
The trial court lacked authority to dismiss under Rule 1.420(e) because the required prerequisites—no record activity for ten months, notice to parties, and a sixty-day opportunity to take action—were absent. Even if the court could have dismissed under Rule 1.200(c), dismissal was not justified because the court failed to set forth findings establishing willful and contumacious behavior, which is required before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal.
[1] A trial court may not dismiss a suit for lack of prosecution under Rule 1.420(e) without first complying with its pre-requisites, including a ten-month period of no recor…
[2] A trial court may dismiss an action under Rule 1.200(c) for failure to attend a case management or pretrial conference.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) allows the court to dismiss a suit for lack of prosecution. However, Rule 1.420(e) outlines certain pre-requisites to dismissal such as no record activity for ten months followed by a notice to the parties and a sixty-day opportunity to take action. These pre-requisites were not present here; thus, the trial court did not have the authority to dismiss the suit for "lack of prosecution" as stated in its order.”
Establishes that the trial court lacked authority to dismiss under Rule 1.420(e) because statutory prerequisites were absent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetersen & Hawthorne, P.A. filed suit against EMI Enterprises, Inc., Ed's Auto Repair, Inc., and Ed and Mary Thibeault. After Appellant failed to atte…
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 Sanction Of Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Petersen & Hawthorne, P.A., appeals the trial court’s order dismissing, without prejudice, its suit against EMI Enterprises, Inc., Ed’s Auto Repair, Inc., and Ed and Mary Thibeault after Appellant failed to attend a case management conference. We reverse.
After Appellant failed to attend a case management conference, the trial court issued an order which stated in its entirety as follows:
Neither plaintiff nor defendant appeared at duly set status conference. Whereas this court hereby dismisses without prejudice the above styled case for lack of prosecution.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) allows the court to dismiss a suit for lack of prosecution. However, Rule 1.420(e) outlines certain pre-requisites to dismissal such as no record activity for ten months followed by a notice to the parties and a sixty-day opportunity to take action. These pre-requisites were not present here; thus, the trial court did not have the authority to dismiss the suit for “lack of prosecution” as stated in its order.
The court could have, however, dismissed the suit under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200(c), which provides that the court may “dismiss the action” if a party fails to attend a case management or pretrial conference. This rule is limited though, and a court should only dismiss a suit for failure to attend a case management or pretrial conference where the party’s conduct is “willful and contumacious.” First Fairway Cando. I Ass’n, Inc. v. Gulfstream Roofing, Inc., 701 So.2d 652, 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Further, the court must set forth findings supporting its ruling in the subject order, and “failure to do so constitutes reversible error.” Giemme USA, LLC v. La Sala Group, Inc., 92 So.3d 920, 922 (Fla. 4th DCA *10652012). See also First Fairway Condo. I Ass’n, Inc., 701 So.2d at 653 (“By imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal without an express finding of willful and contumacious behavior that is supported by the record, the trial court abused its discretion.”); Fugnole v. Crumbly Bros., Inc., 899 So.2d 1262, 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing order dismissing suit based on party’s failure to attend case management conference where order did not set forth findings that party flagrantly ignored court’s direction and abused the system).
Assuming that the court was operating under Rule 1.200(c), we hold that dismissal was not justified. The court’s order merely stated that Appellant failed to attend the- conference and did not set forth any findings establishing that Appellant engaged in “willful and contumacious” behavior. This was not enough. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed.
WARNER and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Martinez, 188 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…trial court must explicitly find that the party’s actions were willful, flagrant, deliberate, or otherwise aggravated. Perkins v. Jacksonville Hous. Auth., 175 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); see also Petersen & Hawthorne, P.A. v. EMI Enters., Inc., 115 So. 3d 1064, 1064-65 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Fugnole v. Crumbly Bros., Inc., 899 So. 2d 1262, 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). In the instant case, no such findings were made. Additionally, the Bank’s motion set forth prima facie grounds to set aside the dismissal. See Oc…
-
Schneider v. Spaeth, 133 So. 3d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…nt to willfulness or deliberate disregard.” Id. Moreover, the trial court must include written findings supporting its ruling in the subject order, and “failure to do so constitutes reversible error.” Petersen & Hawthorne, P.A. v. EMI Enters., Inc., 115 So. 3d 1064, 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citation omitted); see also Kaufman ex rel. Yelnick v. FS Tenant Pool III Trust, 87 So. 3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing a dismissal because the order failed to contain a finding that the failure to appear was…
-
Walter Walls, LLC v. Bright Prop. Solutions (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- First Fairway Condo. I Ass'n, Inc. v. Gulfstream Roofing, Inc., 701 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Bendary Fugnole v. Crumbly Bros., Inc., 899 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Giemme USA, LLC v. LA Sala Grp., Inc., 92 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Ralph J. Banks v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Revenue, 92 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)