HENRY PERNAS
v.
GENERAL IMPACT GLASS & WINDOWS, CORP., ETC.
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.
Henry Pernas appeals the dismissal of his case for lack of prosecution. The trial court dismissed the case after finding Pernas failed to attend a hearing on the dismissal issue, but the appellate court reversed because the record contained no evidence of proper notice or the required sixty-day grace period mandated by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e).
The dismissal was entered in error and reversed. The appellate court held that where the record is devoid of the required notice to parties under Rule 1.420(e), the dismissal cannot stand.
[1] A dismissal for lack of prosecution under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) is void when the trial court fails to provide written notice of its intent to dismiss a…
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“Our intent in amending the rule in 2005 was simply to alleviate the harshness of the rule by providing notice to a party that the action was at risk of being dismissed for lack of prosecution, and affording the party a reasonable time thereafter in which to engage in record activity in order to preclude dismissal.”
Court explaining the purpose of the 2005 amendment to Rule 1.420(e) and the requirement of notice.
Pernas' case had been noticed for trial, with parties filing exhibit and witness lists, and the case was set on several trial calendars but never reac…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Respond cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed September 22, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-1679 Lower Tribunal No. 16-31791 ________________
Henry Pernas,
Appellant,
vs.
General Impact Glass & Windows, Corp., etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Guzman, Judge. South Florida Business Law Group, and Kai E. Jacobs and Lisa N. Balkin Gang, for appellant. Daniels, Rodriguez, Berkeley, Daniels & Cruz, P.A., Jorge L. Cruz and Elier Fernandez, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE and HENDON, JJ. LOGUE, J.
Henry Pernas timely appeals an order dismissing his case for lack of prosecution. Pernas asserts he was not provided proper notice and an opportunity to respond to the trial court’s intent to consider dismissing the case for lack of prosecution pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). We note this case had been noticed for trial, the parties had filed their exhibit and witness lists, and the case had been set on several trial calendars but not reached. In the order dismissing the case, the trial court found that Pernas had not attended a hearing pursuant to an Order to Appear giving notice of the court’s intent to consider dismissing the case for lack of prosecution.
As Pernas points out, however, the record on appeal contains no notice to him of the trial court’s intent to consider dismissing the case, the hearing on that issue, or the sixty-day grace period required by Rule 1.420(e). See Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So. 3d 786, 792 (Fla. 2011) (“Our intent in amending the rule in 2005 was simply to alleviate the harshness of the rule by providing notice to a party that the action was at risk of being dismissed for lack of prosecution, and affording the party a reasonable time thereafter in which to engage in record activity in order to preclude dismissal.”).
In these circumstances, where the record is devoid of the required notice to the parties required by Rule 1.420(e), we can only conclude the dismissal was entered in error. Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mote Wellness & Rehab, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 So. 3d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 2011)