Chrysler Leasing Corporation v. Passacantilli

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court held that filing a pleading after a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution does not satisfy the "action" requirement of Rule 1.420(e), and therefore the appellate court’s rationale was erroneous, but affirmed the reinstatement of the action because the plaintiff had either earlier prosecuted the case or shown good cause due to illness, and remanded for an order to reinstate the case.