ROMAR INTERNATIONAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JIM RATHMAN CHEVROLET/CADILLAC, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
A voluntary dismissal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and expenses under Rule 1.310(g)(1).
[1] A voluntary dismissal of an action completely removes the court's power to enter further orders, equivalent to a deprivation of jurisdiction.
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and expenses under Rule 1.310(g)(1) after a plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed the action.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees moved for attorney's fees and expenses after appellant noticed a deposition but failed to attend. Before the hearing, appellant voluntarily …
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 Attorney'S Fees As Sanction cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
Appellees each moved for attorney’s fees and expenses under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(g)(1), which in essence permits a trial court to award as sanctions, reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, to a party where his opponent notices a deposition but fails to attend.1 However, before the hearing on these motions, appellant took a voluntary dismissal of its action against appellees. The trial court nevertheless proceeded to hear appellees’ motions and ultimately awarded them “costs and attorney’s fees.” Appellant contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to make such an award.
The right of a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit at any time prior to a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, before the jury retires, or before submission of a non-jury case to the court for decision is guaranteed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1). Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1978); Bevan v. D’Alessandro, 395 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). A narrow exception exists where a fraud on the court is attempted by the filing of the voluntary dismissal, in which case the court may strike the voluntary dismissal and reinstate the matter. Bevan v. D’Alessandro; Select Builders of Florida, Inc. v. Wong, 367 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
The effect of a voluntary dismissal is “to remove completely from the court’s consideration the power to enter an order, equivalent in all respects to a deprivation of ‘jurisdiction’.” Randle, 360 So. 2d at 69. See also, Knight v. County of Alachua, 396 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). However, Rule 1.420(d) provides authority for a defendant to recoup its court costs when a voluntary dismissal has been taken. Id.
In Knight v. County of Alachua, appellant, a non-party deponent, had moved for attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) and 1.380(a)(4) to recover such fees incurred in successfully procuring a protective order after being served with a subpoena. Appellee, however, voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit and on appeal the First District Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the motion. The court stated:
[T]he award would have required the judge’s exercise of discretion in granting the motion. The effect of the voluntary dismissal was to remove completely from the court’s consideration the power to enter an order, equivalent in all respects to a deprivation of ‘jurisdiction.’
396 So. 2d at 846.
An award of attorney’s fees and expenses under Rule 1.310(g)(1) likewise requires exercise of the trial court’s discretion. Delta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, 218 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Appellees argue that the instant case differs from Knight in that here we deal with a party who seeks fees and expenses and Rule 1.420(d) permits a defendant to recoup its court costs when a voluntary dismissal has been taken.
However, appellees proceeded here under Rule 1.310(g)(1) and at no time filed a motion to tax costs under Rule 1.420(d). See, e.g., MacBain v. Bowling, 374 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (wherein a motion to tax costs under Rule 1.420 was made). In addition, appellees are seeking to recover attorney’s fees and expenses, including those incurred in travelling to the deposition site. Rule 1.420(d) generally does not permit recovery of attorney’s fees,3 see Randle, 360 So. 2d at 69, or counsel’s travel expenses. Long v. Martin, 410 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
We have been unable to discover any cases under Rule 1.310 which establish that the trial court has inherent jurisdiction after a voluntary dismissal to award the expenses provided for by the Rule. Under Randle and Knight, we reluctantly conclude that the voluntary dismissal here divested the trial court of jurisdiction to pass upon appellees’ motion.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur. . Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(g)(1), provides:
If the party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition fails to attend and proceeds therewith and another party attends in person or by attorney pursuant to the notice, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay to the other party the reasonable expenses incurred by him and his attorney in attending, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
. Rule 1.420(d) provides in part that:
Costs in any action dismissed under this rule shall be assessed and judgment for costs entered in that action.
. There are significant exceptions to this rule but they are not applicable here. See, e.g., MacBain v. Bowling; Gordon v. Warren Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 340 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pino v. The Bank OF NEW York, 121 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2013)…oting the right to seek a voluntary dismissal was "almost absolute” because "[o]ne possible exception [was] where the party taking the voluntary dismissal perpetrates a fraud on the court”); Romar Int’l, Inc. v. Jim Rathman Chevrolet/Cadillac, Inc., 420 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (recognizing the fraud exception, but not applying it). . See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 790 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (concluding that the trial court was required to accept a notice of voluntary dismissal…
-
Ormond Beach Assocs. Ltd. v. Citation Mortg., Ltd., 835 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…he is entitled to receive affirmative relief or a hearing and disposition of the case on the merits, has acquired some substantial rights in the cause, or where dismissal is inequitable. See Romar Int’l, Inc. v. Jim Rathman Chevrolet/Cadillac, Inc., 420 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Visoly v. Bodek, 602 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). When presented with Citation Mortgage’s notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, the issue for the trial court to resolve was simply whether either (1) a hearing on a…
-
Serv. Experts, LLC v. Northside AIR Conditioning & Elec. Serv., Inc., 56 So. 3d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…otice of voluntary dismissal where “the trial court made no finding of fraud, and there is no basis in the record to find that the notice constituted a fraud on the court”) (emphasis added); Romar Int’l, Inc. v. Jim Rathman Chevrolet/Cadillac, Inc., 420 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (“A narrow exception [to the plaintiffs right to voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit] exists where a fraud on the court is attempted by the filing of the voluntary dismissal ....”) (emphasis added). This case is distinguishable…
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
- Randle-Eastern Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1978)
- Kessler v. Medow, 374 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Select Builders OF Fla., Inc. v. Wong, 367 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Gordon v. Warren Heating & AIR Conditioning, Inc., 340 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Press v. Press, 340 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- DELTA Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, 218 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Bevan v. D'Alessandro, 395 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Knight v. Cnty. OF Alachua, 396 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Drake v. Knowlton LAB & Clinic, Inc., 410 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Long v. Mrs. Barbara M. Martin, 410 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)