GONZALO M. LAGE AND GONZALO R. LAGE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANGEL BLANCO, JR., NORMA BLANCO, AND SECURITY UNDERWRITERS, INC., 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.
Appellate court addressed whether trial court had jurisdiction to assess frivolous litigation fees against attorneys who filed suit in corporate names without authorization. The court held that while attorneys could not be added as third-party defendants post-judgment, they could be properly added as unsuccessful plaintiffs to bear the fee sanction.
The trial court had jurisdiction to assess fees against the attorneys, but they could not be added as third-party defendants after judgment because no third-party claim existed. Instead, they should have been added as unsuccessful plaintiffs, which would achieve the same result of holding them liable for the fee sanction.
[1] Attorneys who file and maintain a lawsuit in the name of a corporation without the corporation's authorization may be substituted as parties for the purpose of assessing…
[2] A court may add parties to an action, even after judgment, where required by the equities and pursuant to rule 1.250(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
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 intelligence“In its broadest meaning, the word party includes one concerned with, conducting, or taking part in any matter or proceeding, whether he is named or not.”
Establishes the expansive definition of 'party' supporting the court's authority to hold the attorneys liable despite their lack of formal naming.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo practicing attorneys filed a lawsuit in the names of two corporations against the corporations' employees, alleging various torts and breaches of …
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 Substitution Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
The question presented is whether the court, for the purpose of assessing fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1985), for bringing a frivolous lawsuit, may substitute as parties the attorneys filing the action where the attorneys brought and bitterly maintained the suit in the name of corporations without the corporations’ authorization.
Appellants, practicing attorneys, filed a lawsuit in the name of two corporations against two of the corporations’ employees alleging breach of fiduciary duty, lost corporate opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation, tortious interference with business relationships, conversion and civil conspiracy. The case was dismissed after it was established that the suit was brought without the corporations’ authorization or knowledge. In the order of dismissal the court found a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact and reserved jurisdiction to enter an award of attorneys’ fees against the appellant-lawyers.
Several months later the court granted the appellees’ motion to add the attorneys as third-party defendants for the purpose of assessing fees and costs. After notice and a hearing, a judgment for fees and costs was entered in the amounts of $22,-500 and $1,197.50 respectively.
As a main point on appeal the appellants contend that the court had no jurisdiction over them to tax fees and costs because they were not named parties and because the court lost subject matter jurisdiction to add them as parties after judgment was entered. Appellants also argue that they could not be added as third-party defendants after judgment because there was never a third-party claim.
In its broadest meaning, the word party includes one concerned with, conducting, or taking part in any matter or proceeding, whether he is named or not. Fong Sik Leung v. Dulles, 226 F. 2d 74, 81 (9th Cir.1955). “Parties include, not only those whose names appear upon the record, but all others who participate in the litigation by employing counsel, or by contributing towards the expenses thereof, or who, in any manner, have such control thereof as to be entitled to direct the course of [the] proceedings....” Theller v. Hershey, 89 F. 575 (C.C.N.D.Cal.1898). By those standards the appellants were the only real plaintiffs in the case.
“Parties may be added by order of court on its own initiative or on motion of any party at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.250(c). The liberal rule permits the adding of parties by name even after a judgment is entered, where required by the equities. See Field v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 227 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (case remanded after appeal from final judgment with directions to add interested party pursuant to rule 1.250(c)).
We agree that the appellants could not be added as third-party defendants after judgment because there was never a third-party claim and because their presence in the litigation was at all times as plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the result would be the same if they are added, as they should have been, as unsuccessful plain tiffs. The order on review is modified accordingly.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Stephen M. Zweibach, M.D. v. Richard Gordimer, C.P.A., & Rivero Gordimer & Co., P.A., 884 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…t all others who participate in the litigation by employing counsel, or by contributing towards the expenses thereof, or who, in any manner, have such control thereof as to be entitled to direct the course of [the] proceedings ....’” Lage v. Blanco, 521 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (quoting Theller v. Hershey, 89 F. 575 (C.C.N.D.Cal.1898)). The record here shows that Zweibaeh was in “control” of the proceedings on behalf of LZD and was thus a party subject to the attorney’s fee award even though he was…
-
Horticultural Enters. v. Plantas Decorativas, 623 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ive the lower court of jurisdiction to award fees against the law firm under the statute. The appellant was not obliged to make Holland & Knight a party due to the withdrawal. The case Holland & Knight relies on for this proposition, Lage v. Blanco, 521 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA1988), was different; in that case the attorneys were substituted for the unsuccessful plaintiffs because they had filed and prosecuted the lawsuit without the nominal plaintiffs’ knowledge or authorization. Nor was there anything defe…
-
Lorenzar Brown and David Kaminsky v. City OF Lauderhill, 654 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…nue, 298 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied, 309 So. 2d 547 (Fla.1975). We note that often the term “party” is recognized as including those who are real parties in interest. E.g. Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1993); Lage v. Blanco, 521 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988). See also Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.210(a). Here, even though the recovery of fees will be in the mayor’s name, as these proceedings must be brought in the name of the public official, the city would, in…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fong SIK Leung Ad Litem for Fong Gar Hong v. Dulles, 226 F.2d 74 (9th Cir. 1955)
- Field v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 227 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)