I love it when the Bunker gets jiggy and unconsciously name-checks Lady Gaga.
(I mean, it's happening so often it's almost a trend.)
Guerra v. Southern Homes:
Vicenzo Guerra and Kimberly Guerra (collectively, “the plaintiffs”) appeal from an order dismissing their action filed against Southern Homes of Palm Beach, LLC (“the defendant”). The trial court’s order specifically provides that “the Court finds that . . . there was no record activity during 60 days immediately following service of the [Notice of Lack of Prosecution],” and therefore, “this action is dismissed for lack of prosecution.” However, because the record reflects that there was record activity during the sixty days immediately following the service of the Notice of Lack of Prosecution, we reverse the order under review and remand with directions to reinstate the plaintiffs’ action filed against the defendant.Ok, a few questions:
What the hail happened?
Obviously the trial judge and perhaps the defendant thought there was no record activity. And just as obviously, the plaintiffs must have thought something in the record constituted "record activity."
What was it?
(The answer might provide future litigants some useful guidance -- one of the main reasons why courts issue orders btw.)
Otherwise why didn't the defendant just confess error?
Oh yeah, here's the subconscious Lady Gaga reference (take note, Judge G):
Keep it tight
Sometimes the simplest move is right