Ace Delivery Service, Inc. v. Pickett
| Citation | 274 So.2d 15 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--26,72--26 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Parties | ACE DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. Pauline PICKETT and State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, Appellees. |
David A. Maney, Tampa, for appellant.
John T. Allen, Jr., and Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for appellees.
Ace Delivery Service, Inc., plaintiff in the lower court, will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant and Pauline Pickett and State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, defendants below, will hereinafter be referred to as the appellees.
Appellant appeals timely from a final order in favor of the appellees dismissing appellant's complaint for want of prosecution under the provisions of Rule 1.420(e) RCP, 30 F.S.A.
The record discloses that appellant filed its complaint on February 20, 1970, and appellees filed their answer and defenses on March 16, 1970. During the progress of the case the appellant, on March 18, 1970, filed a motion to transfer to the Pinellas County Circuit Court, which motion was denied by the court after hearing on April 7, 1970. The appellee Pauline Pickett, filed a motion for separate trial on September 28, 1970. No further action was taken in the case until the appellees, on December 8, 1971, filed a motion to dismiss and notice of hearing thereon to be held on December 29, 1971. On the following day, December 9, 1971, the appellant filed interrogatories with the clerk of the Civil and Criminal Court of Record of Pinellas County which contained a certificate of service to the effect that the interrogatories had been served by mail on appellees on December 8, 1971. On December 14, 1971, one of the attorneys of record for the appellant filed an affidavit in opposition to the appellees' motion to dismiss. The trial court, after hearing, granted the appellees' motion to dismiss.
The record, therefore, clearly shows that no action was taken by either party to the cause by the filing of pleadings, order of court, or otherwise for a period exceeding one year.
The question presented to this court is whether the trial court erred in granting the appellees' motion to dismiss for want of prosecution where the appellant served by mail interrogatories upon the appellees on the same day that the appellees filed with the clerk of the court their motion to dismiss.
The appellant contends that service and not filing determines whether action is taken under Rule 1.420(e), RCP.
The appellees contend, on the other hand, that filing and not service is the critical act.
We have carefully read the briefs filed herein by opposing counsel, considered the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and case law, and are of the opinion that the computation of time set forth in Rule 1.420(e), RCP, is to be determined by calculating the time between the date of filing of the last affirmative act and the date of filing of the proceedings to abate. See Shalabey v. Memorial Hospital of the South Broward Hospital District, Fla.App.1971, 253 So.2d 712.
Rule 1.420(e), RCP, provides:
'. . . All actions in which it does not affirmatively appear from some action taken by filing of pleadings, order of court or otherwise that the same is being prosecuted for a period of one year shall be deemed abated for want of prosecution and shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion of any interested person, whether a party to the action or not, after notice to the parties; provided that actions so dismissed may be reinstated on motion for good cause, such motion to be served by any party within one month after such order of dismissal.'
In considering Rule 1.420(e), RCP, the case of Fund Insurance Companies v. Preskitt, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 866, held:
'Construing the rule then in effect, a distinction exists between service and filing of a pleading, with the latter controlling under the rule.'
The distinction between service and filing of pleadings is also recognized in the following rules of procedure:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Togo's Eatery of Florida, Inc. v. Frohlich, 87-279
...date of filing of the motion to dismiss. Konstand v. Bivens Center, Inc., 512 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Ace Delivery Service, Inc. v. Pickett, 274 So.2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Shalabey v. Memorial Hospital of South Broward Hospital District, 253 So.2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), cert. de......
-
Industrial Trucks of Florida, Inc. v. Gonzalez
...filing of the motions to dismiss. Delays prior to that one year period are irrelevant to this determination. Ace Delivery Service, Inc. v. Pickett, 274 So.2d 15 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). In fairness to the trial judge, we might add that he acted in an understandable abundance of caution to protect......
-
Carter v. DeCarion
...prosecute to avert dismissal of the cause. Chrysler Leasing Corp. v. Passacantilli, 259 So.2d 1 (Fla.1972); Ace Delivery Service, Inc. v. Pickett, 274 So.2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Grossman v. Segal, 270 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 274 So.2d 237 (Fla.1973). It is apparent tha......
-
Mitchell v. Coker Fuel Inc., 86-2595
...prosecute to avert dismissal of the cause. Chrysler Leasing Corp. v. Passacantilli, 259 So.2d 1 (Fla.1972); Ace Delivery Service, Inc. v. Pickett, 274 So.2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Grossman v. Segal, 270 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 274 So.2d 237 (Fla.1973). It is apparent tha......