FASCO INDUSTRIES, INC., ETC, ET AL, PETITIONERS,
v.
BILL E. GOBLE, 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.
Fasco Industries and related entities sought a writ of certiorari to abate a lawsuit filed in Seminole County, arguing that a duplicate action was pending in Orange County involving the same parties and facts. The court denied the writ, holding that jurisdiction in competing lawsuits lies in the circuit where service of process is first perfected against all defendants, regardless of which action was filed first.
Jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service of process is first perfected against all defendants, regardless of which action was filed first or whether one or multiple defendants are involved. The trial court properly denied the motion to abate the Seminole County case because service was first perfected there against all parties.
[1] Jurisdiction in a lawsuit between the same parties pending in different circuits lies in the circuit where service of process is first perfected against all parties.
[2] The rule that jurisdiction lies where service of process is first perfected applies regardless of whether there are multiple defendants.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“we find that the better policy is to ... have the date of service of process govern the jurisdictional conflict presented by this case.”
The controlling rule from Mabie v. Garden Street Management Corp. establishing that service of process, not filing date, determines jurisdiction in competing lawsuits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Goble was brought into a lawsuit in Orange County Circuit Court via third-party complaint and filed an answer and amended counterclaim nami…
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 Rule Against Splitting Causes Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Fasco Industries, Inc., Fasco Controls Corporation, Electro Corporation and Lazer-data Corporation (“Petitioners”) seek a writ of certiorari. Petitioners contend that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying their motions to abate a lawsuit filed by Bill E. Goble (“Respondent”) in Seminole County, when there was another lawsuit involving the same facts and the same parties pending in Orange County. We have jurisdiction1 and we deny the writ.
Respondent was brought into a lawsuit in Orange County Circuit Court by a third-party complaint. He filed an answer and a counterclaim which he later amended to include all of the petitioners. Respondent then filed a lawsuit in Seminole County Circuit Court against the same Petitioners involving the same facts. Although the Orange County case was filed first, service of process was perfected first against all the Petitioners in the Seminole County case. Respondent was able to perfect service against some of the petitioners in Orange County, but only perfected service against all of them after they were served in the Seminole County case. Petitioners moved the trial court to abate the Seminole County case because of the pending Orange County lawsuit. They argued that Respondent could not maintain more than one cause of action based on the same facts. See generally Schimmel v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 506 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (explaining rule against splitting causes of action). Further, they argued that where the lawsuit first was filed should determine where jurisdiction lies. Anderson v. Anderson, 563 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990):
The trial court denied the motion relying upon Mabie v. Garden Street Mgt. Corp., 397 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1981). In Mabie, the Florida Supreme Court held that when a trial court is presented with two actions between the same parties pending in two different circuits, jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service of process is first perfected. The court stated:
[W]e find that the better policy is to ... have the date of service of process govern the jurisdictional conflict presented by this ease.
Id. at 920. In this case, service of process against all parties was first perfected in Seminole County.
Petitioners note that Mabie involved only one defendant, and argue that the rule should be different when there are multiple defendants. We disagree. Whether one or multiple defendants are involved in a lawsuit, the logic of Mabie would still apply, jurisdiction lies in the court where service first is perfected against all defendants. Mabie unequivocally rejects the concept that the suit first filed prevails. We see no basis to distinguish Mabie because of multiple defendants. Accordingly, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.
COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . Lightsey v. Williams, 526 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Red Oak Farm, Inc. v. City of Ocala, 636 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. FRY, 693 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…. 2d 480 (Fla.1965). The supreme court has construed this to mean that jurisdiction lies in that circuit where service of process was first perfected. Mabie v. Garden St. Management Corp., 397 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla.1981); Fasco Indus., Inc. v. Goble, 678 So. 2d 916, 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Al Packer, Inc. v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 650 So. 2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Centex-Rodgers Constr. Co. v. Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., 591 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Towers Constr. Co. of Panama City, Inc.…
-
Shooster v. BT Orlando Ltd. P'ship, 766 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ifferent circuits, jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service is first perfected. See, Mabie v. Garden Street Management, Corp. 397 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1981); Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753, 15 So. 2d 842 (1943); Fasco Industries, Inc. v. Goble, 678 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Towers Const. Co. of Panama City v. Key West Polo Club Apts., Ltd., 569 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Florida litigation need not be stayed because of a previously filed action in a federal district court in Florida. See, ITT—…
-
Opko Health, Inc. v. Lipsius, 279 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ultiple defendants are involved in a lawsuit, . . . jurisdiction lies in the court where service first is perfected against all defendants. Mabie unequivocally rejects the concept that the suit first filed prevails.” Fasco Indus., Inc. v. Goble, 678 So. 2d 916, 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Here, it is undisputed that the Federal Securities Action was the first action initiated in Florida. Thereafter, Lipsius was filed on September 27, 2018, and service was perfected on November 9, 2018. Tunick, the Delaware…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr. v. Garden St. Mgmt. Corp., 397 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1981)
- Schimmel v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 506 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Nash v. Nash, 526 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Layne L. Lightsey v. The Honorable Volie A. Williams, Jr., 526 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Anderson v. Kaye Frank Anderson, 563 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- RED OAK Farm, Inc. v. City OF Ocala, 636 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)