Courtney v. Catalina, Ltd.
Docket: No. 3D12-1209
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 21, 2014; Florida; State Appellate Court
James R. Courtney appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate a dismissal order for lack of prosecution under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). Courtney argued that he did not receive the required notice of inactivity or the dismissal order. The appellate court agreed, reversing the trial court's decision. The case originated on May 15, 2009, when Courtney filed against Catalina, Ltd. A Notice of Lack of Prosecution was issued on February 11, 2011, stating that inactivity for ten months would lead to dismissal unless Courtney demonstrated activity or cause by May 20, 2011. The trial court dismissed the case on that date due to lack of prosecution, using the same notice of service that indicated it was sent to "Counsel/Parties of Record." Courtney's attorney filed a verified motion to vacate the dismissal on April 13, 2012, claiming neither he nor co-counsel received the notice or dismissal order. The trial court denied the motion, asserting that access to the online docket constituted sufficient notice. The appellate court found this reasoning flawed, emphasizing that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) mandates service of the notice on all parties, and Rule 1.080(a) requires all court orders to be served according to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516. The court ruled that online postings do not meet the service requirements, and there was no evidence countering Courtney’s claims about lack of notice. The absence of proper service deprived Courtney of the opportunity to act within the specified sixty-day period. The appellate court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion and ordered the dismissal to be vacated upon remand.