DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
NELIA MORENO, A WIDOW, APPELLEE; DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. ROBERT R. GILBERT, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL MORENO, DECEASED, APPELLEE
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.
Dade County appealed orders denying its motions to dismiss two lawsuits for failure to prosecute. The court held that the expiration of the statute of limitations does not constitute good cause to prevent dismissal for lack of prosecution under Florida law.
The court held that the expiration of the statute of limitations does not constitute good cause for denying a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Good cause requires circumstances beyond the mere fact that dismissal would bar the plaintiff's claim due to the running of the statute of limitations.
“good cause is not shown by a sworn statement that the statute of limitations on the claim has run and that upon dismissal the statute would bar the plaintiff's claim”
Establishes the core holding that statute of limitations expiration is insufficient to constitute good cause for denying a dismissal motion
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo separate civil suits were filed against Dade County. In both cases, Dade County moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Rule 1.420(e), Flo…
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
These interlocutory appeals are from identical orders in two separate suits. They involve the same point of law and were consolidated for all appellate purposes. Each order denied the defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the cause pursuant to Rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., for failure to Prosecute.
The order recited:
“* * * that the defendant DADE COUNTY’S Motion to Dismiss be, and the same is, hereby denied upon the express finding of this Court that good cause has been shown by the plaintiffs why this cause should not be dismissed, to-wit, the Statute of Limitations on the claim has run and a dismissal under the provisions of this Rule would bar the plaintiffs’ claim.”
The ground assigned has been held insufficient as good cause for reinstatement of actions dismissed for lack of prosecution under § 45.19(1), Fla.Stat. Davant v. Coachman Properties, Inc., Fla.App. 1960, 118 So.2d 844, 846, 80 A.L.R.2d 1396. And in Laug v. Murphy, Fla.App. 1968, 205 So.2d 695, 697, the court held:
% * * ífí sfc
“Neither the fact that a case is ready to be set for trial, the fact that the dismissal will cause severe hardship, nor the fact that the parties have unsuccessfully negotiated for settlement, constitutes good cause for reinstatement within the intendment of F.S.1963, Section 45.19(1), F.S.A.” (Footnotes omitted.)
Although Rule 1.420(e) has superseded § 45.19(1) and provides for a slightly different practice upon the presentation of a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, the prior opinions are persuasive as to the meaning of the terms employed. Cf. State ex rel. Avery v. Williams, Fla.App. 1969, 222 So.2d 477. We therefore hold that good cause is not shown by a sworn statement that the statute of limitations on the claim has run and that upon dismissal the statute would bar the plaintiff’s claim.
We have examined appellee’s affidavit in opposition to the motion to dismiss for other allegations which might con*550stitute good cause for sustaining the denial of the motion to dismiss. None of the allegations recited would constitute the requisite good cause. Cf. Moore v. Gannon, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 618.
Therefore the orders denying appellant’s motions to dismiss are reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the causes pursuant to Rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Davant v. Coachman Props., Inc., 118 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Laug v. Murphy, 205 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Moore v. Gannon, 178 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Fate Avery, Jr. v. The Honorable Gene Williams, 222 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)