GISLEDA RAMOS, D.D.S., P.A. AND GISLEDA RAMOS, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ORTHODONTIC CENTERS OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLEE
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 Fourth District reversed a trial court's award of attorney's fees because the motion for fees was not filed within thirty days after voluntary dismissal as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, regardless of any stay provision under rule 1.420(d).
A motion for attorney's fees must be filed within thirty days after voluntary dismissal under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, and the thirty-day requirement applies even when the successful party seeks a stay under rule 1.420(d).
[1] A motion for attorney's fees and costs must be filed within thirty days after voluntary dismissal under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, and this deadline applies r…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGisleda Ramos voluntarily dismissed a counterclaim against Orthodontic Centers of Florida. The trial court awarded attorney's fees and costs to Orthod…
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 Stay Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gisleda Ramos petitions for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a trial court order that awarded attorney’s fees and costs to respondent, Orthodontic Centers of Florida. The order was entered after Ramos had voluntarily dismissed a counterclaim. This is a final order, Canfield v. Cántele, 837 So. 2d 371 (Fla.2002), and we accordingly treat this as a plenary appeal.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 provides, “Any party seeking .a judgment taxing costs, attorneys’ fees, or both shall serve a motion within thirty days after filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal.”
Ramos argues that, because the motion for fees was not filed within thirty days after she voluntarily dismissed her counterclaim, the trial court erred in granting the motion for fees. The trial court rejected that argument, concluding that the thirty-day period does not apply where, under rule 1.420(d), the successful party in the prior action is seeking a stay of a second action based on the same claim until the costs are paid for the first action. The problem with the trial court’s reasoning is that it is directly contrary to the plain wording of rule 1.525. Melton Mgmt., Inc. v. Krott-Shaughnessy, 872 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (applying rule 1.525 to rule 1.420(d)). Reversed.
POLEN, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Caufield v. Gino Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2002)
- Melton Mgmt., Inc. v. Krott-Shaughnessy, 872 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)