LEIF E. LAURSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT J. FILARDO AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN 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.
The court held that the trial court's order deeming the amended complaint filed was the equivalent of initiating a new cause of action, thus conferring jurisdiction.
Plaintiff sued Holmes, then stipulated to Holmes' dismissal with prejudice and to filing an amended complaint naming appellees. The trial court dismis…
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 Amended Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
Appellant appeals the dismissal of his amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse.
In this negligence action, appellant, plaintiff below, initially sued Holmes. Appellant thereafter determined that Holmes was not responsible for the injuries sustained. Appellant and Holmes entered into a written stipulation whereby Holmes would be dismissed as a party defendant, with prejudice. The stipulation further provided that appellant would be allowed to file an amended complaint naming appel-lees as defendants.
The stipulation was filed with the trial judge, and a copy of the amended complaint was attached thereto. The trial judge signed an order which dismissed Holmes as a defendant, with prejudice, and further ordered that appellant’s “amended complaint is deemed filed as of the date of entry hereof.” Appellees were properly served with a copy of the amended complaint and the case proceeded.
Ultimately, appellees filed motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment asserting, among other things, that the trial court had no jurisdiction once the stipulation dismissing Holmes was filed. The court agreed and dismissed the suit. By this time the statute of limitations had expired and appellant could not file a new suit against appellees.
A judge may permit papers to be filed with him. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.080(e). The appellees were duly served with a summons and complaint. We hold that the order of the trial court deeming the amended complaint filed was the equivalent of appellant initiating a new cause of action. Consequently, the trial court erred in dismissing the amended complaint.
We decline to address the insurance coverage and workers' compensation exclusive remedy issues raised by appellees because these matters were not litigated or considered by the trial court. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.
RYDER, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Healthcorp Ltd. P'ship v. Close, 787 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
-
In re The Adoption OF R.M.H. R.W.S. v. M.S.H. and M.R.H., 538 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…as well as other factors which may have obstructed the initial bonding between the father and the child. We decline to address the father’s remaining point on appeal at this time since it was not properly before the trial court. Laursen v. Filardo, 468 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we vacate the summary judgment and final judgment of adoption and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. THREADGILL, J., concurs. [*481] CAMPBELL, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part. .…