F. M. C. Corp. v. Chatman, 78-1865

Decision Date28 March 1979
Docket NumberNo. 78-1865,78-1865
Citation368 So.2d 1307
PartiesF. M. C. CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Joe Willie CHATMAN, Respondent.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

J. Craig Corbett, of Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, P. A., Orlando, for petitioner.

David M. Hammond, of Meyers, Mooney & Adler, P. A., Orlando, for respondent.

LETTS, Judge.

This petition for certiorari which we treat as an appeal from a non-final order, results from a holding by the trial judge that the appellee "had shown good cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed." We reverse.

In the case at bar there had been no record activity for over 16 months when the appellant filed its motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 1.420(e) which states:

(e) Failure to Prosecute. All actions in which it appears on the face of the record that no activity by filing of pleadings, order of court or otherwise has occurred for a period of one year 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 reasonable notice to the parties, unless a party shows good cause in writing, at least five days before the hearing on the motion, why the action should remain pending. Mere inaction for a period of less than one year shall not be sufficient cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Committee Note: 1976 Amendment. Subdivision (e) has been amended to prevent the dismissal of an action for inactivity alone unless one year has elapsed since the occurrence of activity of record. Non-record activity will not toll the one year time period.

The appellant first maintains that this Rule, as amended on January 1, 1977, mandates dismissal after one year, with no exceptions. To this end it cites Sainer Constructors v. Pasco County School Board, 349 So.2d 1212 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). We cannot deny that the Second District apparently so held, however, we must stop short of complete agreement, for to do so would render the excerpt from the rule ". . . unless a party shows good cause . . . ." mere surplusage. Accordingly while we agree that activity not of record is insufficient by itself, good cause may still be available if there exists other explanations amounting to something more than mere contacts between the litigant and potential witnesses. See Shields v. Moore, 352 So.2d 139 (Fla.4th DCA 1977).

Adapting this rationale to the case at bar w...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Eischen v. Wayne Tp.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 2 Enero 2008
    ...the opposing party. Devitt, 1996 SD 71, ¶ 15, 551 N.W.2d at 301 (quoting Holmoe, 403 N.W,2d at 32 n. 2 (quoting FMC Corp. v. Chatman, 368 So.2d 1307, 1308 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1979)));, see also Dakota Cheese, Inc., 525 N.W.2d at 716-17 (concluding that plaintiffs' counsel's review of massive ......
  • Devitt v. Hayes
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 19 Octubre 1995
    ...which arises other than by negligence or inattention to pleading deadlines.' " Id. at 32 n. 2 (quoting F.M.C. Corp. v. Chatman, 368 So.2d 1307, 1308 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979)). ¶16 The fact that SDCL 15-6-4(b) allows a defendant to demand a complaint does not mean the defendant must make such ......
  • Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Diaz
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 7 Julio 1988
    ...e.g., 107 Group, Inc.; Carter v. DeCarion, 400 So.2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So.2d 464 (Fla.1982); F.M.C. Corp. v. Chatman, 368 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 379 So.2d 203 (Fla.1979); Daurelle v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 341 So.2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. de......
  • Dakota Cheese, Inc. v. Taylor, 18660
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 4 Enero 1995
    ...happening which arises other than by negligence or inattention to pleading deadlines." Id. at 32 n. 2 (quoting F.M.C. Corp. v. Chatman, 368 So.2d 1307, 1308 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979)). Dakota Cheese and Dee contend that Smith and Taylor lost their right to move for a dismissal for failure to p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT