ERSHOWSKY
v.
ERSHOWSKY
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 circuit court dismissed an action for lack of jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claims could not be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement. The court held that two independent and unrelated claims totaling $5,543.27 could not be combined to invoke circuit court jurisdiction where the civil court of record's jurisdiction was limited to cases not exceeding $5,000.
Two independent and unrelated claims may not be aggregated to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Each claim must be considered separately for purposes of meeting the jurisdictional amount requirement.
“The two independent and unrelated claims may not be aggregated to invoke the jurisdiction of this court.”
States the holding regarding aggregation of claims for jurisdictional purposes
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff asserted two independent and unrelated claims in this action. The first count sought $5,000 (exclusive of interest and costs), and the s…
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 Dismissal Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Order, May 1: This case is at issue and ready for trial and (pursuant to Rule 32 (c)1 of the Common Law Rules) is set for trial on June 12, 1952, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon, before the undersigned judge and a jury, in the courtroom in which the undersigned judge shall then be presiding.
The clerk of the court is directed to give to the attorneys of record for the parties the fifteen days’ notice required by the mentioned rule by transmitting to each of such attorneys a copy of this order.
It is hereby certified that on May 1, 1952, a true copy of the foregoing order was mailed to each of the following named attorneys of record: Messrs. Breger, Sulzberger & St. Jean, 235 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach 39, Florida; and Messrs. Sandler & Wolff, Ingraham Building, Miami 32, Florida.
May 1, 1952. E. B. Leatherman, Clerk
By L. A. Moore,
SEAL Deputy Clerk
Opinion and order, May 21: At the pretrial conference the question whether or not the requisite jurisdictional amount is involved in the action was discussed and considered.
The civil court of record of this county has original jurisdiction of all cases at law where the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed $5,000.
There are two independent and unrelated claims asserted by the plaintiff. The claim asserted in his first count, exclusive of interest .and costs, is for $5,000. It clearly does not exceed $5,000. The claim asserted in the second count, exclusive of interest and costs, is for only $543.27.
The two independent and unrelated claims may not be aggregated to invoke the jurisdiction of this court.
The action is therefore dismissed, without prejudice, at the plaintiff’s cost.