Narrative Opinion Summary
James S. Harris appeals the trial court's denial of his rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate the dismissal of his medical malpractice complaint, which was rendered with prejudice on August 29, 2012. The court affirmed the denial, noting that Harris's motion was untimely. Although Harris claimed he did not initially receive the dismissal order, he acknowledged having a copy by February 23, 2014. Since his motion to vacate was filed more than one year after he received the order, it was deemed untimely according to precedent. The trial court's decision to deny the motion to vacate was therefore upheld.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal with Prejudicesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The original dismissal of the medical malpractice complaint was with prejudice, which impacts the appellant's ability to refile the case.
Reasoning: James S. Harris appeals the trial court's denial of his rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate the dismissal of his medical malpractice complaint, which was rendered with prejudice on August 29, 2012.
Effect of Lack of Initial Noticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's claim that he did not initially receive the dismissal order did not affect the ruling because he acknowledged having received it at a later date.
Reasoning: Although Harris claimed he did not initially receive the dismissal order, he acknowledged having a copy by February 23, 2014.
Timeliness of Rule 1.540(b) Motionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the motion to vacate was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the appellant admitted to having received the dismissal order.
Reasoning: Since his motion to vacate was filed more than one year after he received the order, it was deemed untimely according to precedent.