STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
HARBOUR ISLAND, INC., RESPONDENT; HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, V. HARBOUR ISLAND, INC., RESPONDENT
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 subsequently filed state court action involving the same parties and issues as a pending federal action should ordinarily be stayed until the federal action is resolved.
Petitioners sought a stay of a state court action pending the resolution of a prior, similar federal court action filed by the respondent. The trial c…
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 Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These are consolidated petitions for writs of certiorari to review an order denying the petitioners’ motion to stay the state court action pending the disposition of a prior action involving the same subject matter in federal court. We grant the petitions.
The respondent filed suit against the petitioners in federal court seeking to recover costs allegedly incurred to clean up environmental contamination on a parcel of property previously owned by petitioner Hillsborough County. Approximately fifteen months later, the respondent filed action against the petitioners in state court over the same subject and conduct alleged in the federal case. While the two cases are not identical, the disposition of the federal case will resolve many of the issues raised in the state action.
It is well established that when a previously filed federal action is pending between the same parties on the same issues, a subsequently filed state court action ordinarily should be stayed until the determination of the federal action. See Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817, 114 So. 548 (1927); Schwartz v. DeLoach, 453 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). While there may be circumstances under which the denial of the stay would be warranted, none were presented to the trial court. See generally ITT-Community Development Corp. v. Halifax Paving, Inc., 350 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1215 (Fla.1978) (unlikelihood of early disposition of the federal case may warrant denial of a stay request.)
Accordingly, we grant the petitions, quash the order denying the stay and direct the circuit court to stay the action pending disposition of the federal action.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., HALL and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Crushed Stone Co. v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 632 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…s nonetheless an abuse of discretion to refuse to stay a subsequently filed state court action in favor of a previously filed federal action which involves the same parties and the same or substantially similar issues. State v. Harbour Island, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Ricigliano v. Peat, Marwick, Main & Co., 585 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Koehlke Components, Inc. v. South East Connectors, Inc., 456 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Schwartz v. DeLoach, 453 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).6 Thi…
-
Pilevsky v. Morgans Hotel Grp. Mgmt., LLC, 961 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…rivative claims by eliminating a dispositive affirmative defense to them. “While the two cases are not identical, the disposition of the [New York action] will resolve many of the issues raised” in the Florida action. State v. Harbour Island, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1334, 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Morgans’ “unilateral decision” not to assert its claims as a counterclaim in the New York litigation “should not modify the long-standing principle that subsequently filed” actions should be stayed in favor of a first-filed…
-
Malloy v. Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli & Stewart, P.A., 850 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…e same subject matter, the court in which jurisdiction first attached should determine the controversy and decide every issue properly raised in the case before it. Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817, 114 So. 548, 551 (1927); State v. Harbour Island, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1334, 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Schwartz v. DeLoach, 453 So. 2d 454, 454-55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Shooster v. BT Orlando Ltd. P’ship, 766 So. 2d 1114, 1115-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Once that court has decided all the issues before, it, the parties may pursue…
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
- Neill G. Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817 (Fla. 1927)
- Schwartz v. DeLOACH, 453 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Craft v. State of Fla. ex rel. Richard S. King & Patrici K. King, 350 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)