Reyes v. Aqua Life Corp., Etc.
209 So. 3d 47
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Reyes sued Aqua Life (Pinch A Penny) in state court (Aug 31, 2010) for worker’s‑compensation retaliation and unpaid overtime; Aqua Life removed the case to federal court (Sept 30, 2010) but failed to file a copy of the removal in state court.
- Removal created an automatic stay of state‑court proceedings; the state court thus should not have treated the case as dormant while it was in federal court.
- The federal court remanded the retaliation claim to state court on June 13, 2012; the state court (apparently unaware of removal/remand) issued a notice of dismissal for lack of prosecution on Sept 22, 2012 but did not give notice to Reyes or the defendant.
- Reyes filed a Notice for Trial (Oct 30, 2012); the defendant filed an amended answer and moved to strike the notice (Oct 31, 2012), creating record activity.
- The dismissal hearing occurred without notice to Reyes on Jan 29, 2013, and the court dismissed the entire case for lack of prosecution; Reyes later moved under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(4) to vacate the dismissal.
- The appellate court held the dismissal was a void final judgment because (1) the state court failed to account for the federal stay, (2) there was record activity precluding dismissal, and (3) Reyes received no notice or opportunity to be heard; it reversed and remanded to reinstate the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for lack of prosecution was proper given prior removal and remand | Dismissal was improper because state court ignored the automatic federal stay and included the federal stay period in computing inactivity | Dismissal was justified by alleged lack of record activity in state court | Court: Error — removal created a stay; state court should not have counted the time case was in federal court when computing inactivity |
| Whether record activity (Notice for Trial; amended answer) barred dismissal | Reyes’s Oct 2012 Notice for Trial and appellee’s responsive filings show active proceedings and preclude dismissal | Appellee argued case was dormant and needed dismissal for lack of prosecution | Court: Error — documented record activity within the year and within 60 days of notice barred dismissal |
| Whether dismissal entered without notice to plaintiff is void | Reyes: order entered without notice violated due process and is void; relief available under rule 1.540(b)(4) at any time | Appellee: (implicit) dismissal was procedurally permissible despite lack of notice | Court: Held dismissal entered without notice deprived Reyes of due process and is void; may be vacated at any time under rule 1.540(b)(4) |
| Whether the order was a final judgment subject to 1.540(b)(4) relief | Reyes: dismissal of entire case is a final judgment and void judgments can be set aside anytime | Appellee: (implicit) procedural posture did not preclude denial of relief | Court: Treated the dismissal as a final judgment and vacated it as void under rule 1.540(b)(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mikos v. Sarasota Cattle Co., 453 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1984) (notice of readiness for trial prevents dismissal for lack of prosecution)
- Fishe & Kleeman, Inc. v. Aquarius Condo. Ass’n, 524 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1988) (limits on when bar against dismissal terminates after court action on notice for trial)
- State, Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Johnson v. Haughton, 188 So. 3d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (orders issued without notice are void)
- Prinzee v. Thurmond, 721 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (denial of motion to vacate dismissal is error where dismissal was entered without notice)
- Shields v. Flinn, 528 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (judgment entered without notice is void and must be vacated)
- Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 489 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (void judgment entered without service of process obligates relief under rule 1.540(b)(4))