LEFFERTS L. MABIE, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
GARDEN STREET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court resolved a jurisdictional conflict between two lawsuits involving the same parties filed in different circuits. The Court held that when duplicate actions are pending in different circuits, jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service of process is first perfected, reaffirming Martinez v. Martinez and disapproving the contrary holding in Hunt v. Ganaway.
Jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service of process is first perfected. The Court reaffirmed Martinez v. Martinez (1943) and disapproved Hunt v. Ganaway (1965), holding that the date of service of process governs the jurisdictional conflict when duplicate actions are pending in different circuits.
[1] Jurisdiction in a lawsuit between the same parties pending in two different circuit courts lies in the circuit where service of process is first perfected against all par…
[2] The rule that jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service of process is first perfected applies regardless of whether there is one or multiple defendants.
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“When two actions between the same parties are pending in different circuits, jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service of process is first perfected.”
Establishes the controlling jurisdictional rule adopted by the Court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMabie filed suit against Rood in Escambia County but did not perfect service of process immediately. Garden Street, Rood's principal stockholder's cor…
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 Declaratory Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
McDONALD, Justice.
Mabie seeks reversal of a per curiam decision of the Second District Court of Appeal, 382 So. 2d 901 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), affirming a trial court order denying Mabie’s motion to dismiss and/or transfer Garden Street’s suit for declaratory decree.1 Because of conflict with Rood v. Mabie, 375 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 760 (Fla.1980), we accepted jurisdiction.2 We approve the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal.
Mabie sued Rood, Garden Street’s principal stockholder, in Escambia County, but did not perfect service of process immediately. Garden Street then initiated this action in Hillsborough County and perfected service of process on Mabie. The day following service Mabie amended his complaint to join the corporation, an indispensible party, and thereafter perfected service. The controversy in each case involves how much of its stock Garden Street must issue to Mabie pursuant to his agreement with Rood, the corporation’s promoter. We find that there is jurisdiction for each suit where filed. Mabie contends that this suit is precluded by his suit against Rood which was filed first. Garden Street replies that the instant action prevails because service of process was first perfected in this proceeding.
When two actions between the same parties are pending in different circuits, jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service of process is first perfected. Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753, 15 So. 2d 842 (1943). The First District Court of Appeal, finding that a later rule change overruled Martinez, held that the suit filed first prevails. Hunt v. Ganaway, 180 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 806 (Fla.1966).3 Although there is a rational basis for reaching that conclusion,4 we find that the better policy is to follow Martinez and have the date of service of process govern the jurisdictional conflict presented by this case. We reaffirm Martinez and disapprove Hunt.
The trial judge and the Second District Court of Appeal correctly declined to dismiss or transfer this case. We approve the decision of the district court.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ENGLAND and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . The trial judge’s order reads as follows:
That venue of this cause of action is properly in Hillsborough County alone because the cause of action arose here and the Plaintiff “resides” here, and that this Court first acquired jurisdiction of this cause of action because service of process was-first served in this suit and because the Plaintiff was not a party to the Escambia suit when this court obtained jurisdiction of the subject matter of this suit.
.Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. (1972).
. This is the federal rule. Barber-Greene Co. v. Blaw-Knox Co., 239 F. 2d 774 (6th Cir. 1957).
. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.050.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (34 total)
-
Coastal Petroleum Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 492 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1986)…in Polk County Circuit Court against petitioners claiming fee simple title to portions of the beds of the Peace and Alafia rivers. In each case, petitioners moved to dismiss the suits to quiet title based on Mabie v. Garden Street Management Corp., 397 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1981). The trial court denied the motions. Respondents then moved for summary judgments in their respective cases. The trial court granted said motions. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgments in separate opinions fi…
-
Arjona v. Torres, 941 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…sion.4 [*454] On May 12, 2006, the trial court denied Mr. Arjona’s motion to dismiss, finding that the circuit court has jurisdiction over the competing Mexican case. The circuit court found that, pursuant to Mabie v. Garden Street Management Corp., 397 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1981), and Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753, 15 So. 2d 842 (1943), the date of service of process, not the date of the filing of the complaint, governs jurisdictional conflicts. The circuit court also denied Mr. Arjona’s request to abate the…
-
The Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund OF the State of Fla. v. Mobil OIL Corp., 455 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ty Circuit Court case, the Trustees basically argue on appeal from the procedural angle that the Polk County Circuit Court erred by denying their motion in the alternative. In support of their stand they cite Mabie v. Garden Street Management Corp., 397 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1981), for the proposition that when separate actions addressing identical issues are pending between the same parties in courts of concurrent jurisdiction, exclusive jurisdiction to try those issues lies with the court in which service of proc…
Previewing 3 of 34 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 (Fla. 1943)
- Barber-Greene Co. v. Blaw-Knox Co. & All Purpose Spreader Co., 239 F.2d 774 (6th Cir. 1957)
- Hunt v. Ganaway, 180 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Morgan v. State, 153 Fla. 753 (Fla. 1943)
- Exch. Nat'l Bank of Tampa v. Hosp. & Welf. Bd. of Hillsborough, 188 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1966)
- Rood v. Mabie, 375 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Gen. Dev. Utils., Inc. v. Davis, 375 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)