From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bradley Investment, Inc. v. Vimy Investment, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 14, 1978
359 So. 2d 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

Opinion

No. 77-2525.

June 14, 1978.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, W. Herbert Moriarty, J.

R.T. Shankweiler of Patterson, Maloney Shankweiler, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Maurice M. Garcia of Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick, Schneider Mager, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee, Vimy Investment, Inc.


This appeal involves the reinstatement of a case dismissed for lack of prosecution. The same order of reinstatement also vacated an earlier order abating the cause entered because litigation on the same subject matter had earlier commenced, and was still pending, in Canada. We reverse that part of the judge's order vacating the abatement.

From the record and facts provided, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion when, for good cause shown, he reinstated this case dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Fla.R. of Civ.P. 1.420(e). However, we think he was in error in not continuing the abatement. The trial judge himself recognized the continuation of the Canadian proceedings noting in his order:

Those court orders abated this cause because of the pendency of certain Canadian litigation which the Court has been advised by counsel for the Plaintiff and the intervenors, STILL CONTINUES (emphasis supplied).

However the pendency of the Canadian litigation was the very reason for the entry of an abatement order in the first place and if it (the litigation) STILL CONTINUES, we find nothing in the record to warrant a vacation of the abatement. Moreover, part of the Court's reasoning for reinstatement of the case was that the non-record activity was justified by the Canadian litigation. Accordingly, we find it inconsistent to, in part, find the foreign litigation good cause to reinstate, but not good cause to continue the abatement in accordance with the precepts of Cicero v. Paradis, 184 So.2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).

We would comment that the trial court continues to have the authority to reconsider any order of abatement, upon a proper showing of a change in circumstances.

REVERSED IN PART IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.

CROSS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bradley Investment, Inc. v. Vimy Investment, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 14, 1978
359 So. 2d 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
Case details for

Bradley Investment, Inc. v. Vimy Investment, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BRADLEY INVESTMENT, INC., O'RILEY INVESTMENT, INC., LIBERAL INVESTMENT…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jun 14, 1978

Citations

359 So. 2d 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

Citing Cases

Robinson v. Royal Bank of Canada

The trial court clearly departed from the essential requirements of law by refusing to decline jurisdiction…

de Portela v. Portela

The trial court was within its sound discretion in denying any further relief to the wife, Linda R. de…