Lukowsky v. Hauser & Metsch, P.A.

Decision Date21 August 1996
Docket NumberNo. 95-2871,95-2871
Citation677 So.2d 1383
Parties21 Fla. L. Weekly D1908 Rebecca LUKOWSKY, Appellant, v. HAUSER & METSCH, P.A., et al., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Kenneth E. Cohen; Fried & Luceri, P.A., and Frank Luceri (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell and Joshua D. Lerner and Joseph M. Maus, for appellees.

Before NESBITT, JORGENSON, and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in a legal malpractice action appeals from an order dismissing her complaint for failure to prosecute. For the following reasons, we reverse.

While a motion for summary judgment was pending before the trial court, the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute on the ground that there had been no record activity for over one year. The trial court granted the motion, and in doing so, erred.

Appellant's failure to proceed "in reliance upon anticipated rulings by the court on these motions was sufficient demonstration of good cause, we think, to preclude the dismissal of [this action]." Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Schneemilch, 674 So.2d 782, 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

We emphasize that our holdings in this case and in Air Line Pilots establish a bright-line rule: whenever a dispositive motion is pending before the court, and the parties are awaiting the court's ruling on that motion, the duty to proceed rests squarely upon the court. During that period of the court's deliberation, the cause cannot be dismissed for lack of record activity.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • X.B. v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 17 Noviembre 2021
  • X.B. v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 17 Noviembre 2021
  • Patton v. Kera Technology, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 26 Octubre 2006
    ...Services, Inc., 828 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), and the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Lukowsky v. Hauser & Metsch, P.A., 677 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW In December 1998, Noel Thomas Pat......
  • Sewell Masonry Co. v. DCC Const., Inc., 5D03-28.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 19 Diciembre 2003
    ...proceed rests with the trial court and the cause cannot be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Sewell cites to Lukowsky v. Hauser & Metsch, P.A., 677 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). However, in Lukowsky, a dispositive motion for summary judgment was pending before the court and the parties we......
  • 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