LAURA VILLASMIL
v.
TERRY STEELE, ET AL.
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing an action under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j) for failure to effect timely service when the plaintiff shows neither good cause nor excusable neglect, even if the statute of limitations would bar refiling.
[1] When a plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect for failure to effect service within 120 days after filing the initial pleading under Florida Rule o…
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“If a plaintiff shows good cause or excusable neglect for failure to make timely service, the court must extend the time for service and has no discretion to do otherwise. However, if neither good cause nor excusable neglect is shown, the trial court is no longer required to dismiss without prejudice or drop the defendant as a party, but is left to exercise its discretion.”
Chaffin v. Jacobson, 793 So. 2d 102, 103-104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), explaining the trial court's options under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j)
Appellant Villasmil failed to properly serve defendant Steele within 120 days after filing the initial pleading. The trial court dismissed the action …
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 Dismissal Without Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 7, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D24-1374 Lower Tribunal No. 22-24284-CA-01 ________________ Laura Villasmil, Appellant, vs. Terry Steele, et al., Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo Orshan, Judge. Billera Law, PLLC, and John Fitzgerald Billera (Boca Raton); Christopher J. Bailey, for appellant. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., and Thomas A. Valdez, and Megan Colter (Tampa), for appellee Hilaire Bass. Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. Chaffin v. Jacobson, 793 So. 2d 102, 103-104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“[Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j)] presents a trial court with three options when a plaintiff has not properly served a defendant within 120 days after filing the initial pleading. Those options are: (1) direct that service be effected within a specified time; (2) dismiss the action without prejudice; or (3) drop that defendant as a party. If a plaintiff shows good cause or excusable neglect for failure to make timely service, the court must extend the time for service and has no discretion to do otherwise. However, if neither good cause nor excusable neglect is shown, the trial court is no longer required to dismiss without prejudice or drop the defendant as a party, but is left to exercise its discretion.”); Powell v. Madison Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t., 100 So. 3d 753, 754-755 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“[The court balances] the competing policy considerations between allowing the lawsuit to proceed to a resolution on the merits, and the preclusive effect of the statute of limitations which protects defendants from being compelled to defend stale claims where memories may have faded and evidence might no longer be available. . . . [E]ven when the statute of limitations will bar a further action, the trial court does have discretion to dismiss a case for a failure of service under rule 1.070(j) after properly considering the factors pertaining to such a
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chaffin v. Jacobson, 793 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Powell v. Madison Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 100 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)