Excellent post by Palm Beach Attorney Christopher Hopkins about a conflict that has developed between the 1st DCA and the 2nd and 3rd DCAs with regard to the interpretation of Rule 1.420(e), Fla. R. Civ. Pro. – Failure to Prosecute:
In 2007-2008, the Second and Third Districts held that any filing during the sixty day grace period is sufficient. The First District, in Chemrock Corporation v. Tampa Electric Company d/b/a TECO Peoples Gas Company, holds otherwise (Hawkes, Clark and Wetherell).
In Chemrock, the plaintiff was inactive for 10 months, was served with notice, and during the 60-day grace period filed a “motion in opposition” (which sounded, from the Opinion, like an attempt at showing good cause for inactivity but it was apparently not called up for hearing). Trial court dismissed and appellate court upheld.