BYRON CASSIDY, AIME PERISE, KAREN PERISE, DAVID MURRAY, ELIZABETH RUSK AND GUY RICHER, APPELLANTS,
v.
ICE QUEEN INTERNATIONAL, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiffs appealed an interlocutory order dismissing their complaint against Ice Queen International, an Ohio corporation doing business in Florida. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction, misjoinder was not a valid ground for dismissal, and venue was properly laid.
The court held that the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction as it was qualified to do business in Florida and properly served through its resident agent; misjoinder is not a ground for dismissal under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; the plaintiffs' claims were properly joined as they arose from the same allegedly false representation; and venue was properly laid in Dade County, with any venue objection waived by the defendant's failure to raise it in the original motion to dismiss.
[1] A corporation qualified to do business in Florida and served through its designated resident agent is subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida courts.
[2] Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action in Florida.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action.”
Establishes the primary basis for reversing the dismissal on the misjoinder ground, citing Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.250(a).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMultiple plaintiffs (Cassidy, Aime Perise, Karen Perise, Murray, Rusk, and Richer) were induced by allegedly false representations to sign separate bu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dismissal Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The plaintiffs below seek review of an interlocutory order granting the motion1 of the appellee, Ice Queen International, Inc., an Ohio corporation, to dismiss the complaint on grounds of (a) lack of jurisdiction over the defendant and (b) misjoinder of “multiple claims by multiple parties.” Treating the improperly designated plenary appeal as an appeal under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) from a non-final order which determined jurisdiction of the person,2 we reverse the order below.
Neither ground asserted in the order supports the dismissal of the complaint. The defendant was qualified to do business in Florida and was properly served through its designated resident agent in Leon County. It was therefore plainly subject to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Confederation of Canada Life Ins. Co. v. Vega Y Arminan, 144 So. 2d 805 (Fla.1962); Junction Bit & Tool Co. v. Institutional Mortgage Co., 240 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
As to the misjoinder issue, Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.250(a) specifically provides that “[mjisjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action.” See, Kennedy & Ely Insurance, Inc. v. American Employers’ Ins. Co., 179 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Furthermore, the claims of the several plaintiffs that, induced by the same allegedly false representation, each signed separate but identical franchise agreements with the defendant, were in fact properly joined in a single action. Rosenwasser v. Frager, 322 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Carbonell v. American International Pictures, Inc., 313 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
On appeal, the defendant claims that the complaint was properly dismissed on another ground, that of improper venue. We disagree. Since the venue objection was not raised in the defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was heard and ruled upon below, it has been waived. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b), (g); see, Gross v. Franklin, 387 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). In any case, it appears that venue was properly laid in Dade County under Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1979). See, Mann v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 300 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1974). At the least, Ice Queen did not carry its burden to plead and prove otherwise. Birdsall Shipping, S.A. v. Gallardo, 390 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sheffield Steel Products, Inc. v. Powell Brothers, Inc., 385 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
The order below is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to deny the motion to dismiss and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed.
. The order is interlocutory, rather than final, because it merely granted the motion to dismiss and did not actually dismiss the complaint or the cause. Gries Investment Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Donnell v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co., 378 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
. We are authorized to do so by Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 413 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ing piecemeal appeal where claims are legally interrelated and in substance involve the same transaction. The order of March 6, 1980 is not an appeala-ble order as it merely grants a motion to dismiss, see, Cassidy v. Ice Queen International, Inc., 390 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Gries Investment Company v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Donnell v. International Fire & Casualty Co., 378 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). However, Rule 9.130(g), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes th…
-
Floyd v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. OF Am., 415 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…health insurance policy. The trial court entered an order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action with leave to amend within twenty (20) days — which was non-appealable, Cassidy v. Ice Queen International, Inc., 390 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) — then entered an appealable order of dismissal with prejudice when plaintiffs did not amend the complaint within the allotted time.1 As the single issue in [*104] this appeal appellants contend that the complaint was sufficient a…
-
Hobbs v. DON Mealey Chevrolet, Inc., 642 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…Dombroff v. Eagle-Picher Industries, 450 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 458 So. 2d 272 (Fla.1984); lunction Bit & Tool Co. v. Institutional Mortgage Co., 240 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). See also Cassidy v. Ice Queen International, Inc., 390 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). . In Pepsico', the supreme court dealt with the analogous question of whether connexity was required under section 48.081(3), relative to service of process on a foreign corporation’s registered agent. Like the court in Rose's S…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Gross v. Franklin, 387 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Robert T. Mann et ux. v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 300 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1974)
- Confederation OF Canada Life Ins. Co. v. Arminan, 144 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1962)
- Maltzman v. Pickett, 378 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Kennedy & ELY Ins., Inc. v. Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co., 179 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Junction BIT & Tool Co. v. Institutional Mortg. Co., 240 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Carbonell v. Am. Int'l Pictures, Inc., 313 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Blanco v. Dep't OF Revenue, 385 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Sheffield Steel Prods., Inc. v. Powell Bros., Inc., 385 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)