GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN STANISLAUS, APPELLEE
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.
General Development Corporation appealed a trial court order certifying a class action, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff class. The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that interlocutory review of class certification orders is not available under Rule 9.130 because such orders do not determine personal jurisdiction in the traditional sense.
The court held that interlocutory review of a class certification order is not available under Rule 9.130 because class certification does not determine the court's personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff class. The filing of the class-action complaint, not any judicial order, invokes and determines the court's jurisdiction over the plaintiff class.
[1] An interlocutory appeal of an order certifying a class action is not contemplated by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
[2] Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, the term "jurisdiction of the person" refers to service of process or the applicability of the long arm statute to nonres…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“As used in rule 9.130, the term "jurisdiction of the person" refers to service of process or the applicability of the long arm statute to nonresidents.”
Establishes the narrow scope of what 'jurisdiction of the person' means under Rule 9.130
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs were defaulting buyers in installment land contracts who claimed the defendant seller systematically failed to comply with refund provision…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.220 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order certifying a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a).1 The appellant, defendant below, timely brought an interlocutory appeal of the order certifying the class. It is plain that interlocutory review of such order is not contemplated by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
Rule 9.130 provides for this court’s interlocutory review of trial court orders which determine jurisdiction of the person. The Florida supreme court stated in National Lake Dev. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass’n, Inc., 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla.1982), adopting the language of the Second District Court of Appeal in that same case, 395 So. 2d 592, 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981):
As used in rule 9.130, the term “jurisdiction of the person” refers to service of process or the applicability of the long arm statute to nonresidents. American Health Association v. Helprin, 357 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The defendants in the present case have not raised such matters. Indeed, it would not even be their place to do so on behalf of the plaintiffs. The right to challenge jurisdiction has always been reserved to the person over whom the court is asserting jurisdiction.
417 So. 2d at 657. We find this language to control the issue before us.
In this case, in order that this court might review the merits of plaintiffs’ suit and the propriety of the trial judge’s certification order, the defendant seeks to turn the intent of Rule 9.130 on its head by alleging that the trial court lacks jurisdiction, not over the defendant itself, but over the plaintiff class. We find this to be an untenable use of the interlocutory appeal rule. As the supreme court stated in National Lake Dev.:
[I]t is the filing of the class-action complaint, not any judicial order, that invokes and determines the court’s personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff class [in a class action suit]. Unlike a defendant who cannot unilaterally withdraw from the jurisdiction of the court, the members of the plaintiff class may choose not to be members and thus not to be bound by the judgment. [Citation omitted.] Thus, interlocutory orders relating to the right of plaintiffs to maintain an action generally do not determine the court’s jurisdiction over the plaintiffs. [Citation omitted.]
417 So. 2d at 657. See National Lake Dev., 395 So. 2d at 592, Ero Properties, Inc. v. Cone, 395 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), American Heritage Institutional Sec., Inc. v. Price, 379 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Compare Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County, 513 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (order denying certification of suit as a class action is appealable), review denied, 525 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1988), review denied sub nom., Chemical Bank v. Hessen, 525 So. 2d 876 (Fla.1988). But see Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 385 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (wherein a three judge panel, without benefit of an en banc hearing, disapproved the prior decision of its own court in Atreco-Florida, Inc. v. Berliner, 360 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 366 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1978), and held that a non-final order certifying a plaintiff class is an appealable order because it determines jurisdiction over the person).
Neither do we find this order to be reviewable by common law certiorari. Appellant has a full and complete remedy by way of plenary appeal adequate to protect its interests in the event it does not prevail in the trial court. Chalfonte Dev. Corp. v. Beaudoin, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Gordons Jewelry Co. v. Feldman, 351 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Appeal dismissed; certiorari denied.
. The plaintiffs, defaulting buyers in installment land contracts, claim that the defendant seller systematically failed to comply with the refund provisions of their contracts by wrongfully calculating, on a uniform basis, the damages due the seller as a result of the buyers’ defaults. The class representative of the buyers, John Stanislaus, filed suit for equitable relief, an accounting, and breach of contract.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
KEY Club Assocs. v. Mayer, 718 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ailable against a counterdefendant class. Before 1992, an order certifying a class or refusing to certify a class was not an appeal-able order or an appropriate subject for a petition for common law certiorari. See General Dev. Corp. v. Stanislaus, 544 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In 1992, the supreme court amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 to add subsections 9.130(a)(3)(c)(vii) and 9.130(a)(6). See In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 609 So. 2d 516 (Fla.1992). Thus, i…
-
Holiday Pines Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Wetherington, 557 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…e dictates of our supreme court. It is also true that our Siksay decision was decided after Lake Tippecanoe, but plainly Siksay was at odds with our supreme court and, therefore, inappropriate. See also General Development Corporation v. Stanislaus, 544 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Accordingly, this portion of the appeal is dismissed. The homeowners’ association also appeals that part of the order granting a temporary injunction. We reverse. • The order in question also enjoined the association from maki…
-
Post-Newsweek Stations v. Honorable Robert P. Kaye, 585 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…remedy on appeal. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987); American Southern Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Feldman v. Glucroft, 553 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); General Development Corp. v. Stanislaus, 544 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 551 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1989). A trial court has broad discretion to deny discovery motions, American Southern Co., 565 So. 2d at 892, and certiorari may not be utilized to review rulings if the alleged error can be rectif…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Nat'l Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass'n, Inc., 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1982)
- Edwards v. Lawyers Title Guar. Fund, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Wenk v. Tsiotis, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Nat'l Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass'n, Inc., 395 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Am. Health Ass'n, Inc. v. Helprin, 357 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Kohl v. BAY Colony Club Condo., Inc., 385 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- T & T Trucking Co. & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. McWILLIAMS, 379 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Gordons Jewelry Co. OF Fla., Inc. v. Hyman Feldman and Esther Feldman, 351 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Brunicarde v. State, 360 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Penelope Hessen v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 513 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)