Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Electric Co.
71 So. 3d 786
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Chemrock filed a 2002 product-claim suit against Tampa Electric in Duval County; case set for trial but continued by joint motion; no further motion to reset for trial filed.
- Rule 1.420(e) provides dismissal for lack of prosecution after 10 months of no record activity, with a 60-day grace period to engage in record activity.
- Rule 1.420(e) was amended in 2005 to include the 60-day grace period; the 2006 version remains in effect.
- Chemrock filed a motion during the 60-day grace period (Feb 2007) but there was no record activity until June 24, 2008; Tampa Electric moved to dismiss in 2008 for lack of prosecution.
- Trial court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution; First District affirmed; Chemrock appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
- The Florida Supreme Court held that a filing during the 60-day grace period constitutes record activity precluding dismissal, quashing the First District and approving Pagan, Padron, and Edwards to the extent consistent with this holding, and remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Wilson apply to the 60-day grace period under amended Rule 1.420(e)? | Wilson bright-line rule applies to both periods. | Grace-period activity must be evaluated differently. | Yes; Wilson applies to both periods. |
| Did Chemrock's 2007 filing constitute record activity during the grace period? | Any filing during the grace period precludes dismissal. | Only filings intended to move toward merits could preclude dismissal. | Yes; the filing met record-activity requirement. |
| Is the First District decision in conflict with Pagan/Padron/Edwards on rule 1.420(e)? | There is express conflict. | No direct conflict given different contexts. | The conflict is resolved in favor of the amended-rule construction; quash the First District. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363 (Fla. 2005) (bright-line interpretation of record activity under prior rule 1.420(e))
- Edwards v. City of St. Petersburg, 961 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (applied Wilson to amended rule 1.420(e))
- Pagan v. Facilicorp, Inc., 989 So.2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (held that a grace-period filing can preclude dismissal under Wilson approach)
- Padron v. Alonso, 970 So.2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (similarly applied Wilson to grace-period filings)
- Gulf Appliance Distributors, Inc. v. Long, 53 So.2d 706 (Fla.1951) (origin of the term 'affirmatively' in record activity context (pre-1976))
- Mikos v. Sarasota Cattle Co., 453 So.2d 402 (Fla.1984) (notice for trial context—precludes dismissal when proper)