M-5 COMMUNICATIONS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ITA TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; LUCA LASTRUCCI AND TITO SILVIERA, 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.
The court held that the defendants' active participation in the lawsuit after a notice of voluntary dismissal constituted a voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction, negating the need for further process.
The plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal against two defendants, but these defendants continued to actively defend the action by filing mot…
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 Voluntary Submission To Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Although the plaintiff served and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to the only counts of the complaint which named two of the defendants, the present appellees, Luca Lastrucci and Tito Silviera, those defendants continued actively to defend the action as if the notice had not been filed. Specifically, they moved to dismiss the very counts in question, sought affirmative relief against the plaintiff, and proceeded in all respects as if they were actively involved in the lawsuit. Notwithstanding, in the order now under review, the trial court dismissed the action as to these defendants, apparently on the ground that, because of the earlier voluntary dismissal, it no longer had jurisdiction over their persons.
We reverse on the ground that the appel-lee-defendants’ actions below constituted a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court which obviated the need or purpose of subsequent process against them. Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316, 161 So. 576 (1935); Meyer v. Roesel, 482 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1334 (Fla.1986); Fundaro v. Canadiana Corp., 409 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Moreover, because the statute of limitations ran as to these defendants during the period in which they actively appeared and before they called the alleged jurisdictional objection to the attention of the court and the plaintiff, reversal is also mandated by an application of the anti-gotcha rule in its original and purest form. Salcedo v. Asociacion Cubana, Inc., 368 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 342 (Fla.1979).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grip Dev., Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Est., Inc., 788 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ttoli & Hudon Investment of America Inc., 687 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Berkman v. Foley, 709 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); M-5 [*272] Communications Inc. v. ITA Telecommunications Inc., 708 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1998).... [T]he spirit of the modern Rules of Civil Procedure is best served where as here procedural niceties which have no bearing upon the rights of parties are forgiven.” The final sentence shows that he thought any violation of t…
-
Nelson v. State, 855 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…AHOOD, JJ., concur. . See, e.g., Berkman v. Foley, 709 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("the courts will not allow the practice of the 'Catch-22' or 'gotcha!' school of litigation to succeed.”); M-5 Communications, Inc. v. ITA Telecomms., Inc., 708 So. 2d 1039, 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“reversal is also mandated by an application of the anti-gotcha rule in its original and purest form."); Hieke v. State, 605 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("However, that omission would appear to demonstrate that the…
-
Andreaus v. Impact Pest Mgmt., Inc., 157 So. 3d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…h-22’ or ‘gotcha!’ school of litigation to succeed.”); see also Harley v. Lopez, 784 So. 2d 447, 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (refusing to reward “gotcha” tactics, which have been “long abhorred by this court”); M-5 Commc’ns, Inc. v. ITA Telecomms., Inc., 708 So. 2d 1039,1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“[R]eversal is ... mandated by an application of the anti-gotcha rule in its original and purest [*446] form.”).1 Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. KELLY and SLEET,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Salcedo v. Asociacion Cubana, Inc., 368 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1935)
- Cirigliano v. Singer, 409 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Fundaro v. Canadiana Corp., 409 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Meyer v. Roesel, 482 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)