Weston Tc Lllp v. Cndp Marketing Inc., 66 So. 3d 370

Weston TC LLLP sued CNDP Marketing, Inc. and Helen C. Schur Parris for breach of a lease in Feb 2008.
Parties answered and counterclaimed; discovery and litigation activity occurred Feb–Oct 2008.
On Dec 31, 2008, CNDP and Parris moved for sanctions against Weston.
On Nov 25, 2009, defendants noticed lack of prosecution and planned dismissal after 1 year of inactivity under Rule 1.420(e).
On Jan 19, 2010, Weston filed a notice of absence/unavailability of its attorney within the 60‑day grace period.
The circuit court dismissed for lack of prosecution; the Fourth District reversed, holding the Jan 19 filing constitutes record activity under Rule 1.420(e).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Jan. 19, 2010 filing constitutes record activity to avoid dismissal.	Weston: yes, the filing suffices as record activity.	CNDP: no, the filing is insufficient under Chemrock/Wilson concepts.	Yes; the Jan. 19 filing constitutes record activity and avoids dismissal.

Gulf Appliance Distribs. v. Long, 53 So.2d 706 (Fla.1951) (early active/passive activity framework under Rule 1.420(e))
Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363 (Fla.2005) (bright-line rule: any record activity within one year precludes dismissal)
Hall, Metropolitan Dade Cnty. v. Hall, 784 So.2d 1087 (Fla.2001) (quoted standard for determining record activity by face of record)
Edwards v. City of St. Petersburg, 961 So.2d 1048 (Fla.2d DCA 2007) (grace-period filings analyzed under Wilson approach)
Lingo Construction v. Pritts Inc., 990 So.2d 705 (Fla.4th DCA 2008) (motion filed within grace period can count as record activity)
Pagan v. Facilicorp, Inc., 989 So.2d 21 (Fla.2d DCA 2008) (grace-period filings considerations under Wilson framework)
Padron v. Alonso, 970 So.2d 399 (Fla.3d DCA 2007) (interpretation of filings within the 60-day grace period)
Bakala v. Bakala, 58 So.3d 423 (Fla.2d DCA 2011) (recognizes record activity considerations under Rule 1.420(e))