MICHAEL LESINSKI v. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
226 So. 3d 964
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Lesinski’s case sat inactive for 10 months; the circuit court served a Rule 1.420(e) notice of lack of prosecution and set a hearing for Nov. 9, 2016.
- No record activity occurred in the 60 days after the notice; no stay was entered. Two days before the hearing Lesinski’s counsel filed a late “showing of good cause.”
- At the Nov. 9 hearing the court dismissed the case under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(e); a written dismissal followed.
- Lesinski moved under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(1) to vacate the dismissal, alleging counsel’s excusable neglect (office calendaring error); an affidavit from counsel’s paralegal supported this.
- The trial court denied the 1.540(b)(1) motion without an evidentiary hearing; Lesinski appealed, arguing the uncontradicted excusable-neglect showing required relief and at minimum an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 1.420(e) dismissal may be vacated under 1.540(b)(1) for counsel’s excusable neglect after missing the 60- and 5-day deadlines | Lesinski: uncontradicted evidence of calendaring error establishes excusable neglect and justifies vacatur | SFWMD: Rule 1.420(e) imposes bright-line, mandatory deadlines; court must dismiss when deadlines are missed | Court: Denied relief — allowing 1.540(b)(1) to undo 1.420(e) would nullify rule’s bright-line deadlines; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the 1.540(b)(1) motion | Lesinski: summary denial without a hearing was error given affidavit evidence | SFWMD: not necessary; rule’s plain language controls | Court: No error — rule’s mandatory deadlines dispose of the motion regardless of an evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2005) (interpret Rule 1.420 by its plain meaning; bright-line rule prevents dismissal if any filing occurs)
- Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 2011) (apply de novo review to construction of procedural rules)
- Turner v. FIA Card Svcs., N.A., 51 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (strict enforcement of the 5-day good-cause filing requirement under Rule 1.420(e))
- CPI Mfg. Co. v. Industrias St. Jack’s, S.A. De C.V., 870 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (Rule 1.090(b)(2) excusable-neglect relief cannot be used to evade Rule 1.420(e)’s mandatory dismissal)
- Somero v. Hendry Gen. Hosp., 467 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (where inaction results from clerical error or similar foibles, timely application with reasonable explanation may justify relief)
- Held v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc., 217 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (applying Rule 1.420(e) bright-line timing for good-cause filings)