Nalley v. Rotstein

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED RONALD NALLEY, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D11-3940 JONATHAN I. ROTSTEIN, ESQ ET AL., Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 28, 2013 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Richard S. Graham, Judge. James P. Kelaher of Kelaher Law Offices, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. William H. Rogner of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox, Waranch & Westcott, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. We reverse the lower court's order dismissing the suit for lack of prosecution. The filing of the motion to amend the complaint and the proposed amended complaint within the sixty-day grace period was sufficient to avoid dismissal. Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 2011). The trial court erred by striking the motion and proposed amendment as a sham. Yunger v. Oliver, 803 So. 2d 884, 886 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing Destiny Constr. Co. v. Martin K. Eby Constr., 662 So. 3d 388, 390 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)); see also Furst v. Blackman, 819 So. 2d 222, 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ( A sham pleading is one which is undoubtedly false and known to be so to the party preparing it. (quoting Menke v. Southland Specialties Corp., 637 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994))). REVERSED AND REMANDED. TORPY, EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.