PEARSON v. PEFKAROU (1999)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

Harry PEARSON, Appellant, v. Athena C. PEFKAROU, M.D., et al., Appellees.

No. 98-2550.

Decided: June 02, 1999

Before COPE, FLETCHER, and SORONDO, JJ.

Harry Pearson, in proper person. Diaz & Morel-Saruski; Hicks & Anderson and Ila J. Klion, Miami; Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford and Shelley H. Leinicke, Ft. Lauderdale; Woman, Appleby & Brennan and David Appleby, Ozark, MO, for appellees.

The trial court dismissed Harry Pearson's medical malpractice claim for lack of prosecution, pursuant to rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Our review of the record reveals that there had been no affirmative activity in the case for a period of one year preceding the filing of the motion to dismiss and good cause had not been shown as to why the action should remain pending. As a consequence the trial court had no choice but to grant the motion. See Industrial Trucks of Fla., Inc. v. Gonzalez, 351 So.2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Mr. Pearson's suggestion that his status as a pro se litigant should excuse his failure to prosecute his cause on a timely basis, while understandable, must be rejected. Self-representation does not relieve a party of the obligation to comply with the rules of court. See § 454.18, Fla. Stat. (1997); Carr v. Grace, 321 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 945 (Fla.1977).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network