Chemrock Corporation v. Tampa Electric Company d/b/a TECO Peoples Gas Company (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 17, 2009)
Excellent post by Palm Beach Attorney Christopher Hopkins about a conflict that has developed between the 1st DCA and the 2nd and 3rd DCAs with regard to the interpretation of Rule 1.420(e), Fla. R. Civ. Pro. - Failure to Prosecute:
In 2007-2008, the Second and Third Districts held that any filing during the sixty day grace period is sufficient. The First District, in Chemrock Corporation v. Tampa Electric Company d/b/a TECO Peoples Gas Company, holds otherwise (Hawkes, Clark and Wetherell).
In Chemrock, the plaintiff was inactive for 10 months, was served with notice, and during the 60-day grace period filed a “motion in opposition” (which sounded, from the Opinion, like an attempt at showing good cause for inactivity but it was apparently not called up for hearing). Trial court dismissed and appellate court upheld.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Chemrock Corporation v. Tampa Electric Company d/b/a TECO Peoples Gas Company (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 17, 2009).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://reporter.floridacivpro.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/182
Search the Florida Rules Decisions
Search the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
Contact the Authors
Brian Willis
Attorney Bio
Email Brian
Jason Baruch
Attorney Bio
Email Jason
Brian and Jason provide legal services to local, national and international clients with business and real estate related legal issues in the Tampa Bay area and across Florida. We always appreciate case referrals from our local and out of state readers. Please contact us at the links above.
Share & Follow
(follow us on Twitter)
(click for RSS feed)
Leave a comment