PREFERRED EQUITIES CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN M. ROSEN AND RICHARD A. KATZ, D/B/A KATZ & ROSEN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, 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.
Preferred Equities sued its former attorney Rosen and his firm for negligence, claiming Rosen drafted an inadequate complaint in a brokerage commission action. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no causal connection between the alleged drafting defects and Preferred's loss.
Preferred cannot recover because there is a conspicuous absence of any causation or damages attributable to the drafter of the first complaint. The trial court's amendment of the first dismissal order from without prejudice to with prejudice was jurisdictionally improper and did not flow from any defect in Rosen's drafting.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to amend an order of dismissal without prejudice after the time for rehearing has passed.
[2] A plaintiff who loses on the merits in a second action cannot establish causation or damages against the drafter of the complaint in a prior, voluntarily dismissed action…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because the trial court in the second action was without jurisdiction to amend the order dismissing without prejudice the first action”
Establishes that the trial court lacked jurisdictional authority to modify the first dismissal order, which undermines any claim that Rosen's drafting caused the problem.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosen represented Preferred in an action to recover a brokerage commission. Preferred moved for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which was grant…
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 Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Rosen represented Preferred in an action to recover a brokerage commission. Preferred moved for a voluntary dismissal which was granted without prejudice. Six months later a new lawyer representing Preferred filed the same action which came before the same judge. The defendants moved for dismissal. After examining “the file herein, the file [from the complaint filed by Rosen],” reading memorandums of law and hearing oral argument, the trial court found the order in the first action to be “in need of some clarification” and found, on the merits of the second action, that the brokerage contract was unenforceable.
The trial court amended the order in the first action by changing it to a dismissal with prejudice and dismissed with prejudice the complaint in the second action. Following an appeal on the merits, we affirmed, see Preferred Equities Corp. v. Diaz-Asper, 370 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA) (mem.), cert. denied mem., 379 So. 2d 208 (Fla.1979). Preferred then brought suit against Katz & Rosen for negligence, alleging that Rosen drafted the complaint in the first action inadequately. Katz & Rosen moved for a summary judgment.
The trial court granted the motion.
Because the trial court in the second action was without jurisdiction to amend the order dismissing without prejudice the first action, see Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1978); Tinsley v. McDonald, 378 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Sun First National Bank of Delray Beach v. Green Crane & Concrete Services, 371 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), and because Preferred lost on the merits in the second action, we find a conspicuous absence of any causation or damages attributable to the drafter of the first complaint and affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Randle-Eastern Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1978)
- SUN First Nat'l Bank OF Delray Beach v. Green Crane & Concrete Servs., Inc., 371 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Tinsley v. Lovett McDONALD, 378 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)