Case Name: Duane NICHOLS, et al., Appellants, v. Donald LOHR, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-02-02
Citations: 776 So. 2d 366
Docket Number: No. 5D00-94
Parties: Duane NICHOLS, et al., Appellants, v. Donald LOHR, et al., Appellees.
Judges: W. SHARP, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 776
Pages: 366–368

Head Matter:
Duane NICHOLS, et al., Appellants, v. Donald LOHR, et al., Appellees.
No. 5D00-94.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb. 2, 2001.
Clifford A. Taylor, Bunnell, for Appellants.
Robert E. Broach and Alan K. Ragan of Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appel-lees.

Opinion:
PLEUS, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal based on a finding that there was no record activity within one year and there was a failure to show good cause why the case should not be dismissed.
This case is actually the second case filed involving the same parties and subject matter. The first case was dismissed for failure to serve the defendants within 90 days.
The complaint, answer and reply to affirmative defenses were all filed in June and July of 1998. A notice of deposition was served on September 28, 1998, which was amended and re-served on October 5, 1998. However, both were filed in the original case because the plaintiffs attor ney inadvertently used the prior case number. A deposition was actually taken on October 22, 1998.
The court, on its own motion, on September 9, 1999, sent out a notice dismissing the case. A response to the notice was not filed by the plaintiff until October 19, 1999. A hearing was held and the judgment of dismissal was entered on November 24,1999.
Suffice it to say the reasons advanced by the plaintiff for the delay in moving the case forward to trial were not compelling. The trial judge apparently agreed, and we will not interfere with the court's discretion in that regard.
The issue on appeal is whether the amended notice of deposition sent out on October 5, 1998, although filed in the wrong case file, constitutes record activity. We hold it does not.
The mere fact that a notice of deposition schedules the taking of a deposition for a future date does not assure the deposition will be taken. It does not result in activity in the record on the future date. Smith v. DeLoach, 556 So.2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 564 So.2d 1087 (Fla.1990).
Appellant does not take the position that the actual taking of the deposition constitutes record activity that is designed to move a case toward trial. The mere taking of a deposition does not constitute record activity. Levine v. Kaplan, 687 So.2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 697 So.2d 511 (Fla.1997).
At oral argument, appellant conceded that under any view of the facts no record activity took place between the filing of the reply to affirmative defenses in July of 1998, and the court's notice on September 9, 1999.
In Lavender v. Taylor, 704 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), this court held that a trial court's notice relating to a failure to prosecute was not record activity. The court's show cause order of September 9, 1999 also does not constitute record activity.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) is perhaps a harsh rule, but all things in the temporal spectrum must have an end. The rule which determines this end is rule 1.420(e).
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
GRIFFIN, J., dissents, with opinion.