LAYNE DREDGING COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
REGUS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Layne Dredging Company challenged a trial court order permitting Regus to file a crossclaim after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint. The court held that a crossclaim is extinguished by a voluntary dismissal of the complaint, unlike a counterclaim, and therefore the trial court lacked authority to permit the crossclaim to be filed.
A crossclaim is extinguished upon voluntary dismissal of the complaint and the trial court lacks authority to permit its subsequent filing. Unlike counterclaims, which survive voluntary dismissal under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(2), crossclaims do not survive such dismissal.
[1] A voluntary dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1)(A) nullifies any purpose a defendant may have had to transfer liability throu…
[2] A trial court lacks authority to enter orders, including permitting the filing of a crossclaim, after a complaint has been voluntarily dismissed.
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“Any purpose the defendant Regus may have had to transfer its liability through a crossclaim to Layne was nullified at the moment when CIT accomplished the voluntary termination of its lawsuit.”
Establishes the core holding that a crossclaim is extinguished by voluntary dismissal of the complaint.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCIT Group filed suit against multiple defendants including Layne and Regus. After Regus answered the complaint, it served a motion to amend its answer…
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 Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, Layne Dredging Company (Layne), seeks review of the trial court’s determination to enter orders after the complaint was voluntarily dismissed. We treat this proceeding, initiated with a petition for writ of prohibition,1 as one seeking certiorari relief. See Tinsley v. McDonald, 378 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
The plaintiff in this action, The CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. (CIT), filed suit against several parties including Layne and the respondent, Regus, Inc. (Re-gus). After Regus answered the complaint, it served a motion to amend its answer to assert a crossclaim against Layne. A copy of the proposed crossclaim was not attached, nor were its contents described. CIT then served a notice of voluntary dismissal of its complaint pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1)(A). The core problem in this case arose long after the voluntary dismissal was achieved, when the trial court entered an order permitting the filing of Re-gus’ crossclaim against Layne.
Our research has failed to disclose any authority which would sustain the trial court’s actions. Any purpose the defendant Regus may have had to transfer its liability through a crossclaim to Layne was nullified at the moment when CIT accomplished the voluntary termination of its lawsuit.
Finally, Gull Construction Co. v. Hendrie, 271 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and Our Gang, Inc. v. Commvest Securities, Inc., 608 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), are wholly inapposite. Those cases focused upon the survivability of counterclaims in the context of voluntary dismissals. A counterclaim, however, unlike a crossclaim, is not extinguished by a voluntary dismissal of the complaint. See Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.420(a)(2).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the orders entered after the voluntary dismissal.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur. . The trial judge was appropriately denominated as the respondent in the petition seeking prohibition. Because we treat this appeal as a certiorari proceeding, however, we have removed the name of the lower court judge from the style of the case. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.100(c)(3).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maria v. Cheshire, 175 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ms with prejudice was void. Appellee’s subsequent notice of voluntary dismissal would have no effect on appellant’s counterclaims if the trial court’s earlier order of dismissal was void under rule 1.540(b)(4). See Layne Dredging Co. v. Regus, Inc., 622 So. 2d 7, 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that a counterclaim is not extinguished by a voluntary [*887] dismissal of the complaint). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on the limited issue of whether the order dismissing appellant’s cou…
-
Fersom Mortg., Inc. v. Moreno, 254 So. 3d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…im, which was granted. After filing their amended answer, the Homeowners filed a motion to dismiss Fersom's crossclaim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In their motion to dismiss, the Homeowners, relying on Layne Dredging Co. v. Regus, Inc., 622 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), argued that Fersom's crossclaim did not survive BNY's voluntary dismissal. The trial court agreed and dismissed Fersom's crossclaim, citing Layne Dredging. This appeal follows. The issue before us is whether BNY's voluntary dism…
-
McGinley v. Mitchell (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2016)…Serv., Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68, 69 (Fla. 1978)). See also Katke v. Bersche, 161 So. 3d 574, 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (once trial court accepts voluntary dismissal, it loses subject matter jurisdiction). In Layne Dredging Co. v. Regus, Inc., 622 So. 2d 7, 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), the plaintiff sued several defendants. One defendant filed a motion to plead a crossclaim against another defendant. Id. Before the court ruled on the motion, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint. Id. After this,…
Authorities Cited
- Tinsley v. Lovett McDONALD, 378 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Grous v. Wilke Berry Standland and Corlen Standland, 271 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Gull Constr. Co. v. Hendrie, 271 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- O'Brien v. Buddecke, 608 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)