Legal Opinion

Gadinsky v. Bruno

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 18, 1997No. 96-0250PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DELL, Judge.

The trial court dismissed appellants’ amended complaint for lack of prosecution, pursuant to rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellants raise four points on appeal, two of which require reversal of the trial court’s order of dismissal.

First, the bankruptcy proceeding initiated by appellee Bruno was not concluded until ten months before the trial court’s order of dismissal for lack of prosecution. The bankruptcy action constituted a parallel proceeding and the automatic stay provisions of *868the Bankruptcy Act prevented further proceedings in the case sub judice. See…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bowman v. PeeleDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  2. Barton-Malow Co. v. Gorman Co. of Ocala, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
  3. Sandini v. Florida East Coast Properties Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Reuben C. Setliff, III, M.D., P.C. v. StewartSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Williams v. Susquehanna Veal Farms, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002
  3. Reuben C. Setliff, III, M.D., P.C. v. StewartSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API