Department of Transp. v. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, 89-982
| Decision Date | 13 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-982,89-982 |
| Citation | 557 So.2d 145 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D465 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN and Misener Marine Const., Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas H. Bateman, III, Gen. Counsel and Gregory G. Costas, Appellate Atty., Dept. of Transp., Tallahassee, for appellant.
John M. Fite of Barron, Redding, Hughes, Fite, Bassett & Fensom, P.A., Panama City, for appellee Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan.
F. Alan Cummings, Mary M. Piccard and George E. Spofford, IV, of Cummings, Lawrence & Vezina, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellee Misener Marine Const., Inc.
The Department of Transportation has appealed an order of the trial court dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction its complaint against appellees. We reverse.
In August 1986, the Department filed a complaint against appellees Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, and Misener Marine Construction Co., Inc., alleging negligence and breach of contract relating to the construction of certain bridges in the Florida Keys. By order dated August 8, 1988, but not filed until August 17, 1988, the trial court ruled on the complaint as follows:
Pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e), the above cause stands dismissed for failure to prosecute subject to reinstatement for good cause shown by motion filed within 20 days from the date of this order.
No hearing was held on the order, nor did the Department appeal or seek rehearing. Rather, it filed a response on September 6, 1988, setting forth various explanations for the failure to prosecute. The trial court thereupon reinstated the case by order dated December 1, 1988, and the Department filed an amended complaint which was served on appellees in January 1989.
Appellees thereafter filed a motion to dismiss, contending that, since no good cause had been shown within 20 days of the order dated August 8, 1988, as of August 29, 1988, the case had stood dismissed without further order of the court. Consequently, it was urged, the trial court had no jurisdiction to reinstate the case by its December 1, 1988 order. After a March 1989 hearing, the trial court entered the order appealed finding that it had no jurisdiction to proceed. The court found that by the terms of the order, the Department was required to respond within 20 days of August 8, 1988, and that the Department had neither filed a timely response, nor appealed or sought rehearing. The court therefore concluded that, after August 28, 1988, it had had no further jurisdiction to proceed.
We find that the resolution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...a certain future date in the absence of a petition for a formal hearing was not a final order); Department of Transp. v. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan , 557 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (holding that order, which purported to dismiss cause for failure to prosecute subject to reinstateme......
-
Connor v. State
...2003); United Water Fla., Inc. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 728 So.2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Dep't of Transp. v. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, 557 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Epley v. Washington County, 358 So.2d 592, 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In these instances, the order is co......
-
ATM LTD. v. Caporicci Footwear Ltd., Corp.
...on a certain future date in the absence of a petition for a formal hearing was not a final order); Department of Transp. v. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, 557 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)(holding that order, which purported to dismiss cause for failure to prosecute subject to reinstateme......
-
Ponton v. Gross
...and cannot be a final order dismissing the case for failure to file a legible complaint. See Department of Transportation v. Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, 557 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Nor could the trial court make the order final on some future date conditioned on the failure of......