Case ID: so2d_630/html/0632-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. POLEN, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BURGER KING CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. William John RUDGE, and Prism Integrated Sanitation Management, Inc., f/k/a Bugs Burger Bug Killer, Inc., f/k/a Bugs Burger Chemical Company, Inc., Appellees. PRISM INTEGRATED SANITATION MANAGEMENT, INC., f/k/a Bugs Burger Bug Killers, Inc., and Bugs Burger Chemicals, Inc., f/k/a Bugs Burger Chemical Company, Inc., Appellants, v. William John RUDGE, and Burger King Corporation, a Florida Corporation, Appellees.
    Nos. 93-1423, 93-1424.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Jan. 12, 1994.
    
      Lisa D. Harpring and Robin A. Blanton of Moss, Henderson, Vangaasbeek, Blanton & Koval, P.A., Vero Beach, for appellant/Burger King Corp.
    Yvette Rhodes Prescott and Stephen B. Sundook of Peters, Robertson, Lax, Parson & Welcher, Miami and Fort Myers, for appellant/Prism Integrated Sanitation Management.
    William Bassett, Jr. of Gary, Williams, Parenti, Finney & Lewis, Fort Pierce, for appellee/William John Rudge.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. The trial court declined to dismiss appellee’s case even though the ap-pellee did not effect service of process upon the appellants within 120 days of filing suit. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070(i). The trial court relied upon the holding in Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So.2d 538 (Fla.1992), that trial courts have “broad discretion in declining to dismiss an action if reasonable cause for the failure to effect timely service is documented.” Id. at 540. Here, the appel-lee’s attorneys put on substantial evidence demonstrating their own “excusable neglect” in delaying service because a serious ethical question had arisen as to their representation of the appellee. We believe this was sufficient to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion.

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.

POLEN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

POLEN, Judge,

concurring specially.

I have no quarrel with the result reached by the majority. I write separately to reiterate my dissent in Comisky (fn. 1), that appellate courts should not exercise jurisdiction over non-final appeals from orders of the trial courts denying motions to dismiss pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(i). The majority of this court, sitting en banc, has held otherwise in Comisky. I am obliged to follow that directive. 
      
      . We have jurisdiction. See Comisky v. Rosen Management Service, Inc., 630 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).