RHR GLOBAL, LLC
v.
ALFRED I. ROLLE, III, 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 dismissal for lack of prosecution under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) is improper when there is record activity within the 60 days immediately following service of the notice of intent to dismiss.
[1] Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e), dismissal for lack of prosecution requires both the absence of record activity for ten months preceding service of notice…
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“Because the record reflects activity within the 60-day period immediately following the service of the notice, the court erred in entering the order of dismissal.”
Court's explanation of why the dismissal was improper
RHR Global, LLC filed an action in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The trial court issued a notice of intent to dismiss for failure to prosecute and …
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 For Failure To Prosecute cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 21, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-2102 Lower Tribunal No. 17-22761-CA-01 ________________
RHR Global, LLC, Appellant,
vs.
Alfred I. Rolle, III, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge.
Christian Carrazana, P.A., and Christian Carrazana, for appellant.
No appearance, for appellees.
Before GORDO, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.
BOKOR, J.
2
RHR Global, LLC, the plaintiff below, appeals an order dismissing the action for lack of prosecution.1 See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(e). RHR identifies record activity within the 60 days immediately following service of the court’s notice of intent to dismiss for failure to prosecute. See id. (providing for dismissal where there is no record activity for 10 months immediately preceding the service of notice and no record activity in the 60 days immediately following service). Because the record reflects activity within the 60-day period immediately following the service of the notice, the court erred in entering the order of dismissal. See Waldeck v. MacDougall, 300 So. 3d 1218, 1219–20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
Reversed.