JOHN A. HIRSCH AND RONALD W. ZOLLA, PETITIONERS,
v.
MARGARET DIGAETANO, M.D., ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Petitioners sought certiorari review challenging a trial court's refusal to stay a Florida contract action filed by Dr. DiGaetano, arguing that a prior Massachusetts action between the same parties involving identical claims should take precedence under Florida's well-established principle of priority jurisdiction.
The court held that Florida law establishes the principle that where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction of a cause of action, the first court to exercise jurisdiction has the exclusive right to hear all issues. Absent extraordinary circumstances, a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to respect this principle of priority.
[1] Where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction of a cause of action, the first court to exercise jurisdiction has the exclusive right to hear all issues or questions arisi…
[2] The principle of priority between courts of concurrent jurisdiction rests upon comity and the prevention of unnecessary litigation.
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“where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction of a cause of action, the first court to exercise jurisdiction has the exclusive right to hear all issues or questions arising in the case”
Establishes the fundamental principle of priority jurisdiction that Florida recognizes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn A. Hirsch and Ronald W. Zolla filed a motion to stay a contract action initiated by Margaret DiGaetano, M.D. in Florida. A previous contract acti…
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 Principle Of Priority cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, J.
Petitioners, John A. Hirsch and Ronald W. Zoila, seek certiorari review of an order denying their motion to stay a Florida action initiated by respondent, Margaret DiGaetano, M.D. Petitioners sought to stay the contract action filed by DiGaetano in Florida because a previous contract action between the same parties and involving the same claims was first filed in Massachusetts. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
It is the well-established law of Florida that where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction of a cause of action, the first court to exercise jurisdiction has the exclusive right to hear all issues or questions arising in the case. Royal Globe Ins. v. Gehl, 358 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see also Florida Crushed Stone Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 632 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (reversing summary judgment where lower court refused to stay state action involving same parties and similar issues in previously filed federal suit). The principle of priority rests not only upon comity between courts of concurrent jurisdiction, but also acts to prevent unnecessary litigation and a multiplicity of suits. Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), receded from, on other grounds, Thomas v. Thomas, 724 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Absent extraordinary circumstances which do not exist in this case, a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to respect the principle of priority. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith, Inc. v. Ainsworth, 630 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (certiorari granted where trial court refused to stay action, stating that principle of priority provides that the court first exercising jurisdiction acquires exclusive jurisdiction to proceed).
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, C.J. and W. SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Parker v. Est. OF Hartford E. Bealer, 890 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…exclusive right to hear all issues or questions arising in the case ... Absent extraordinary circumstances which do not exist in this case, a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to respect the principle of priority. Hirsch v. DiGaetano, 732 So. 2d 1177, 1177-78 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (quashing order denying stay where a previous contract action involving the same parties and causes of action was filed in Massachusetts and circumstances did not exist to justify denial of stay). We conclude that the p…
-
In re Guardianship OF Joseph Scott Morrison v. Morrison, 972 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ssues herein because our decision on the principle of priority renders them moot. . Bogert cites to Schwartz v. DeLoach, 453 So. 2d 454, 454-55, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Sauder v. Rayman, 800 So. 2d 355, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Hirsch v. DiGaetano, 732 So. 2d 1177, 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Fla. Crushed Stone v. Travelers Indem. Co., 632 So. 2d 217, 220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Polaris Pub. Income Funds v. Einhom, 625 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).…
-
Shooster v. BT Orlando Ltd. P'ship, 766 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…H, J. Daniel H. Shooster, petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review an order entered by a successor judge granting a motion to reconsider a stay order and vacating the earlier stay order. We have jurisdiction. See Hirsch v. DiGaetano, 732 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc. v. Ainsworth, 630 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1993). We agree with the petitioner that the successor judge departed from the essential requirements of the law, and therefore quash the…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Fla. Crushed Stone Co. v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 632 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Thomas v. Thomas, 724 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Dollinger v. Dollinger, 358 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Merrill Lynch v. Ainsworth, 630 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)