Court Opinion

ID: 9948143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 16:06:10.000489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:16.408434
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                                State of Florida

                          Opinion filed March 6, 2024.
        Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                             ________________

                              No. 3D22-1942
                        Lower Tribunal No. 20-17302
                           ________________

                             Carlos Gonzalez,
                                   Appellant,

                                      vs.

                          City of Coral Gables,
                                   Appellee.

    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos
Guzman, Judge.

    Philip D. Parrish, P.A., and Philip D. Parrish; Stuart A. Teller, P.A., and
Kenneth E. Mazlin (Davie), for appellant.

      Briscoe Zuluaga, PLLC, and Eric K. Gressman, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, LOBREE, and BOKOR, JJ.

      PER CURIAM.
      On August 13, 2020, Carlos Gonzalez filed a complaint against the City

of Coral Gables three days before the expiration of the four-year statute of

limitations for the claim. Over a year after the complaint was filed, Gonzalez

served the City. After it was served, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss

pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j). The trial court heard the

Motion to Dismiss in April of 2022, and entered an Order granting the

dismissal. Gonzalez filed a Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration. The

trial court heard this motion in August 2022 and denied the motion two

months later.

      We reverse because the trial court erred in finding there was no good

cause for the late service. An uncontroverted nine-page affidavit setting forth

detailed circumstances of good cause was filed of record six days prior to

the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. See Fernandez v. Cohn, 54 So. 3d

1040, 1041-42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that good cause was shown, and

the rule at issue does not contemplate a dismissal that effectively would be

with prejudice in this context—where good cause was shown and service

was accomplished prior to the court or the party acting pursuant to 1.070(j)).

      Reversed and remanded.

                                      2