349 So. 2d 824

Leo HENZEL, Appellant, v. Edwin GOLSTEIN and S.W.F.P. Company, a Florida Corporation, Appellees.

No. 76-1165.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 13, 1977.

*825E. C. Watkins, Jr., Tampa, for appellant.

Hugh F. Quinn, South Miami, for appel-lees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ.

HUBBART, Judge.

By this appeal we are asked to review a trial court order dismissing an action for lack of prosecution. The appellant contends that he was given inadequate notice for the hearing on the appellee’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of prosecution. We agree and reverse.

Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e)1 contemplates that a party should have sufficient notice for a hearing on an adverse motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution to allow him to file a written pleading no later than five working days2 before such hearing showing good cause why the action should remain pending. In the instant case, the appellant had only one working day’s notice prior to the hearing on the motion to dismiss, which notice was clearly inadequate. We, accordingly, reverse the order of dismissal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Henzel v. Golstein
349 So. 2d 824

Case Details

Name
Henzel v. Golstein
Decision Date
Sep 13, 1977
Citations

349 So. 2d 824

Jurisdiction
Florida

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!