FRANK M. BARRENTINE, APPELLANT,
v.
VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, AND JOHN MCNEIL, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
Frank Barrentine appealed a trial court's order denying his motion to reinstate a personal injury negligence action that had been dismissed for failure to prosecute. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Barrentine failed to demonstrate good cause for reinstatement where his excuse was merely that his employment duties kept him busy.
The court held that Barrentine failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Being busily engaged in personal pursuits or finding it inconvenient to give attention to a case does not constitute good or legal cause for failure to prosecute, and therefore does not justify reinstatement of a dismissed action.
“it is the established law of this state that one seeking reversal of a trial court's order denying reinstatement of a cause which has been dismissed for lack of prosecution carries a heavy burden demonstrating that under the facts adduced by the evidence the trial court abused its discretion, which discretion will not be lightly disturbed.”
Establishes the high standard of review and burden on appellant challenging denial of reinstatement motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarrentine filed a personal injury negligence action against Vulcan Materials Company and John McNeil. After the cause became at issue, no action was …
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 Good Cause For Reinstatement cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant has appealed a final judgment in favor of appellees predicated upon an order denying appellant’s motion to reinstate the cause which had theretofore been dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 1.420(e), R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.
This is a personal injury action in which appellant seeks damages suffered as a result of appellees’ alleged negligence. The cause became at issue upon the complaint, answer, and reply to interrogatories propounded to appellant. No action was taken by appellant in the prosecution of the cause for a period of more than one year. Upon motion of appellees, the cause was dismissed for failure of appellant to prosecute.1
Within the time permitted by the rule appellant filed his motion to reinstate the cause, which motion was supported by his own affidavit, that of his employer, and his attorney. The import of the proof submitted by appellant in support of his motion is that at all times during the one-year period when his cause of action was at issue and ready for trial he was busily engaged in the course of his employment at various job sites throughout the southeastern region of the United States, his duties requiring him to work on each business day of the week, including Saturdays. Appellant’s. attorney attested that on one occasion, the date not specified, he requested one of the circuit judges sounding the civil docket to set this case for trial, which request was not complied with. There is no showing in appellant’s proof that despite the continuous demands made upon his time in discharging the duties of his employment that he was unable, because of reasons beyond his control, to attend a trial of the cause had the trial date been set and he notified. There is likewise no showing in the proof that appellant’s counsel complied with the local rules of court regarding the filing of a pretrial order as a necessary prerequisite to having the case placed on the docket for trial.
It is the established law of this state that one seeking reversal of a trial court’s order denying reinstatement of a cause which has been dismissed for lack of prosecution carries a heavy burden demonstrating that under the facts adduced by the evidence the trial court abused its discretion, which discretion will not be lightly - disturbed.2
It is equally established that one whose case has been dismissed for failure to prosecute is entitled to reinstatement only upon a showing of good cause as that term has been construed by the decisional law of this state. Merely because a litigant is busily engaged in personal pursuits unrelated to the cause of action instituted by him in a court of Florida, or otherwise finds it inconvenient to give to his cause of action that attention necessary to progress it in an orderly manner to a final conclusion, does not constitute good or legal cause for failure to prosecute, nor does it justify reinstatement.3
*59Appellant having failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying its motion for reinstatement, the final judgment predicated upon the order of denial is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chrysler Leasing Corp. v. Passacantilli, 259 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)…motion to dis [*4] miss under the rule is made a party must still show either active prosecution within the preceding year, or good cause for his failure to prosecute. Sroczyk v. Fritz, 220 So. 2d 908 (Fla.1969); Barrentine v. Vulcan Materials Co., 216 So. 2d 57 (Fla.App. 1st, 1968); All State Building Materials, Inc., v. Peoples National Fund, Inc., 219 So. 2d 464 (Fla.App. 1st, 1969); Dade County v. Moreno, 227 So. 2d 548 (Fla.App. 3rd 1969). Turning to the issue presented, in our view neither the statut…
-
Barrentine v. Vulcan Materials Co., 216 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)…ssing with prejudice his complaint brought for the recovery of damages arising out of personal injuries suffered as a result of defendants’ alleged negligence. This is a companion case to that of Barrentine v. Vulcan Materials Company [*60] et al., 216 So. 2d 57, in which this court has today filed its opinion affirming the final judgment appealed therein. The final judgment in that case was entered consequent upon a previous order denying plaintiff’s motion to reinstate his cause which had theretofore been…
-
Paedae v. Voltaggio, 472 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…dings between attorneys); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Gilman, 280 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (no good cause shown by office errors, attorney’s inadvertent failure to prosecute or plaintiff’s change of counsel); Barrentine v. Vulcan Materials Co., 216 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968) (no good cause shown by litigant who was too busy or otherwise found it inconvenient to give attention to cause of action); Laug v. Murphy, 205 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) (no good cause shown where parties were negotiating bu…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Adams Eng'g Co., Inc. v. Constr. Prods. Corp., 156 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1963)
- Little v. Sullivan, 173 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1965)
- Ry. Exp. Agency, Inc. v. Hoagland, 62 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1952)
- Lenore Miller v. Hartley's, Inc., 97 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Barrentine v. Vulcan Materials Co., 216 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Wilburn Combs v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 112 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Allen v. Gaither, 112 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Schreyer v. Ely Liniado, 100 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)